OF  THE 

U N I VERS  ITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 

Received  by  bequest  from 
Albert  H.  Lybyer 
Professor  of  History 
University  of  Illinois 
1916-1949 


1 


/; 


A HISTORY  OF  GREEK  ART, 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/historyofgreekar00tarb_2 


Northwest  Corner  of  the  Parthenon,  Restored. 
(From  Fenger,  “ Dorische  Polychromie,”  PI.  II.) 


A History  of  Greek  Art 

With  an  Introductory  Chapter  on 
Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia 


BY 

F.  B.  TARBELL 

PROFESSOR  OF  CLASSICAL  ARCHAEOLOGY  IN  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 


Neto  govfc 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  & CO.,  Ltd. 

1908 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1896, 

By  FLOOD  & VINCENT. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped  elsewhere.  Reprinted  August, 
1902:  March,  1904;  March,  June,  1905;  January,  March,  1906 
October,  1907  ; March,  November,  1908. 


Norfooob  $re« : 

Berwick  & Smith,  Norwood,  Mass.,  U.SJL 


PREFACE. 


5T 

mr 


Oo 

0 

<ar 

tl 

1 

i 

J 

X 

X 


or 


r 


The  art  of  any  artistically  gifted  people  may  be 
studied  with  various  purposes  and  in  various  ways. 
One  man,  being  himself  an  artist,  may  seek  inspiration 
or  guidance  for  his  own  practice ; another,  being  a 
student  of  the  history  of  civilization,  may  strive  to  com- 
prehend the  products  of  art  as  one  manifestation  of  a 
people’s  spiritual  life  ; another  may  be  interested  chiefly 
in  tracing  the  development  of  artistic  processes,  forms, 
and  subjects  ; and  so  on.  But  this  book  has  been 
written  in  the  conviction  that  the  greatest  of  all  motives 
for  studying  art,  the  motive  which  is  and  ought  to  be 
strongest  in  most  people,  is  the  desire  to  become 
acquainted  with  beautiful  and  noble  things,  the  things 
that  “ soothe  the  cares  and  lift  the  thoughts  of  man.” 
The  historical  method  of  treatment  has  been  adopted  as 
a matter  of  course,  but  the  emphasis  is  not  laid  upon 
the  historical  aspects  of  the  subject.  The  chief  aim 
has  been  to  present  characteristic  specimens  of  the 
finest  Greek  work  that  has  been  preserved  to  us,  and  to 
suggest  how  they  may  be  intelligently  enjoyed.  Fortu- 
nate they  who  can  carry  their  studies  farther,  with  the 
help  of  less  elementary  handbooks,  of  photographs,  of 
casts,  or,  best  of  all,  of  the  original  monuments. 

Most  of  the  illustrations  in  this  book  have  been  made 
from  photographs,  of  which  all  but  a few  belong  to  the 
collection  of  Greek  photographs  owned  by  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago.  A number  of  other  illustrations 
have  been  derived  from  books  or  serial  publications,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  accompanying  legends.  In 

iii 


IV 


Preface . 


several  cases  where  cuts  were  actually  taken  from 
secondary  sources,  such  as  Baumeister’s  “ Denkmaler 
des  klassischen  Altertums,”  they  have  been  credited  to 
their  original  sources.  A few  architectural  drawings 
were  made  expressly  for  this  work,  being  adapted  from 
trustworthy  authorities,  viz.:  Figs.  6,  51,  61,  and  64. 
There  remain  two  or  three  additional  illustrations,  which 
have  so  long  formed  a part  of  the  ordinary  stock-in- 
trade  of  handbooks  that  it  seemed  unnecessary  to  assign 
their  origin. 

The  introductory  chapter  has  been  kindly  looked 
over  by  Dr.  J.  H.  Breasted,  who  has  relieved  it  of  a 
number  of  errors,  without  in  any  way  making  himself 
responsible  for  it.  The  remaining  chapters  have  un- 
fortunately not  had  the  benefit  of  any  such  revision. 

In  the  present  reissue  of  this  book  a number  of  slight 
changes  and  corrections  have  been  introduced. 


Chicago,  January,  1905, 


t 33  W.— These  are  said  to  be  the 

seven  wonders  of  the  world,  although 
authorities  differ:  First  the  pyramids  of 
Egypt ' second,  the  tomb  ouilt  for 
Mausolus,  King  of  Caria,  by  Artemisia, 
his  queen;  third,  the  Temple  of  Diana 
at  Ephesus,  supposed  to  have  been  200 
years  in  building,  and  was  supported  by 
127  colums  of  Parian  marble,  60  feet  high, 
each  weighing  150  tons  p fourth  the  Wall 
and  hanging  gardens  of  Baoylon;  fifth, 
the  Colossus  at  Rhodes,  a brazen  statue 
of  Apollo,  70  cubits  high;  sixth,  the 
statue  of  Jupiter  at  Olympia,  in  Elis, 
sculptured  on  ivory  and  gold  by  Phidias, 
the  greatest  sculptor  among  the  ancients; 
seventh,  the  Pharos  or  watch  tower  at 
Alexandria,  built  by  order  of  Phila- 
delphus,  about  2S0  B.  C.  It  was  built  of 
white  marble  and  could  be  seen  at  a dis- 
tance of  100  miles. 

C.  M.  B. — Ttfvorpes  in  TTnif^ri  c«+~  + ~-* 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia  . . 15 

II.  Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece  ....  47 

III.  Greek  Architecture  ........  77 

IV.  Greek  Sculpture — General  Con- 

siderations   1 13 


V.  The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculp- 
ture. First  Half  : 625  (?)-55o  B.C.  727 

VI.  The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculp- 
ture. Second  Half  : 550-480  B.  C.  143 

VII.  The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek 


Sculpture.  480-450  B.C 160 

x-  HSNptH?  IBgp-0  l . 

VIII.  The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 

First  Period  : 450-400  B.  C.  ...  184 

IX.  The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 

Second  Period  : 400-323  B.  C.  . . . 215 

X.  The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek 

Sculpture.  323-146  B.  C 243 

XI.  Greek  Painting 268 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Northwest  Corner  of  the  Parthenon,  Restored  . . Frontispiece . 

FIGURE.  PAGE. 

1.  The  Great  Sphinx  and  the  Pyramids  of  Cheops  and 

Chephren.  Gizeh 17 

2.  The  “ Sheikh-el-Beled.”  Gizeh  Museum 20 

3.  Ra-nofer.  Gizeh  Museum 21 

4.  Cross-legged  Scribe.  Paris,  Louvre 23 

5.  Head  of  Nefert.  Gizeh  Museum 24 

6.  “ Proto-Doric  ” Column.  Beni-hasan 25 

7.  Temple  of  Luxor,  Restored 26 

8.  View  through  Hypostyle  Hall.  Karnak  ......  27 

9.  Column  of  Hypostyle  Hall.  Karnak 28 

10.  Column  of  Medinet  Habti ....  29 

11.  Bronze  Statue  of  Horus.  Paris,  Louvre 31 

12.  Bas-relief.  Abydos 32 

13.  Wall-Painting.  Thebes 34 

14.  Portrait  Head.  Berlin 35 

15.  Statue  of  Gudea.  Paris,  Louvre 36 

16.  Head,  from  Tello.  Paris,  Louvre 37 

17.  Assyrian  Relief.  London,  British  Museum 39 

18.  Assyrian  Relief.  Paris,  Louvre 40 

19.  Winged  Bull.  Paris,  Louvre 41 

20.  Assyrian  Relief.  London,  British  Museum  ....  43 

21.  Wounded  Lioness.  London,  British  Museum  ...  44 

22  Citadel  of  Tiryns 49 

23.  Gallery  in  the  Eastern  Wall.  Tiryns 50 

24.  Portion  of  Citadel  Wall.  Mycenae 51 

25.  The  Lion  Gate.  Mycenae 52 

26.  Section  of  “Treasury  of  Atreus  ” 53 

27.  Interior  of  “ Treasury  of  Atreus  ” 54 

28.  Ceiling  of  Tomb-Chamber  at  Orchomenus,  Restored.  55 

29.  Alabaster  Frieze  from  Tiryns,  Restored 57 

30.  Wall-Fresco  from  Tiryns 58 

31.  Primitive  Statuettes  from  the  Greek  Islands.  Lon- 

don, British  Museum 59 


viii 


Illustrations . 


FIGURE.  PAGE. 


32.  Gravestone  from  Mycenae.  Athens,  National  Mu- 

seum   60 

33.  Relief  above  the  Lion  Gate.  Mycenae 62 

34.  Gold  Ornament 63 

35.  Gold  Ornament 63 

36.  Silver  Cow’s  Head.  Athens,  National  Museum  . . 64 

37.  Fragment  of  Silver  Vase.  Athens,  National  Mu- 

seum   65 

38.  Inlaid  Dagger-Blade.  Athens,  National  Museum  . 66 

39.  Two  Gold  Cups.  Athens,  National  Museum  ...  68 

40.  41.  Engraved  Gems  from  Mycenae 70 

42.  Vases  of  Mycenaean  Style 71 

43.  Vases  (Silver,  Terra-cotta,  and  Alabaster)  and  Statu- 

ettes from  Mycenae 72 

44.  Dipylon  Vase,  with  Details 73 

45.  Plate  from  Rhodes.  British  Museum 75 

46.  Greek  Method  of  Building  a Wall 79 

47.  Plan  of  Small  Temple.  Rhamnus 80 

48.  Plan  of  Temple  of  Wingless  Victory.  Athens.  . . 81 

49.  Plan  of  Temple  at  Priene 82 

50.  Plan  of  Parthenon.  Athens 83 

51.  Corner  of  a Doric  Facade 84 

52.  West  Front  of  the  Temple  of  Athena,  Restored. 

Angina 86 

53.  Fragment  of  Sima,  with  Lion’s  Head.  Athens, 

Acropolis  Museum 87 

54.  Half  of  Anta-Capital  of  the  Athenian  Propylaea, 

with  Color  Restored 88 

55.  Hawk’s-beak  Molding,  Colored 89 

56.  East  Front  of  the  Parthenon,  Restored  and  Dis- 

sected   90 

57.  Temple  of  Posidon  (?).  Psestum 91 

58.  Columns  of  the  Temple  of  Zeus.  Nemea 92 

59.  Early  Doric  Capital  from  Selinus 93 

60.  Late  Doric  Capital  from  Samothrace 93 

61.  Corner  of  an  Ionic  Fagade 94 

62.  Capital  from  Temple  of  Wingless  Victory.  Front 

View 95 

63.  Capital  from  Temple  of  Wingless  Victory.  Side 

View 95 


Illustrations . 


IX 


FIGURE.  PAGE. 

64.  Ionic  Corner  Capital,  as  Seen  from  Below 96 

65.  Entablature  and  Upper  Part  of  Column  from  the 

Mausoleum.  British  Museum 97 

66.  Order  of  the  Erechtheum,  East  Portico 98 

67.  The  Erechtheum,  from  the  East,  Restored 99 

68.  Anta-Capital  and  Wall-Band,  from  the  Erechtheum. 

British  Museum 99 

69.  The  North  Portico  of  the  Erechtheum 100 

70.  Temple  of  Wingless  Victory.  Athens 101 

71.  Ionic  Capital  from  Samothrace 102 

72.  Corinthian  Capital  from  Epidaurus 103 

73.  Corinthian  Capital  from  the  Choragic  Monument  of 

Lysicrates.  Athens 104 

74.  Theater.  Epidaurus 111 

75.  Copy  of  a Caryatid  of  the  Erechtheum.  Rome,  Vati- 

can Museum 116 

76.  Head  of  the  Farnese  Athena.  Naples 122 

77.  Archaic  Female  Figure  from  Delos.  Athens,  Na- 

tional Museum 128 

78.  “Apollo  ” of  Thera.  Athens,  National  Museum  . . 130 

79.  “ Apollo  ” of  Tenea.  Munich 132 

80.  Archaic  Pediment-Figures.  Athens,  Acropolis  Mu- 

seum   133 

81.  Head  Belonging  to  an  Archaic  Pediment-Group. 

Athens,  Acropolis  Museum 134 

82.  Male  Figure  Carrying  a Calf.  Athens,  Acropolis 

Museum 135 

83.  Seated  Figures  from  Miletus.  London,  British  Mu- 

seum   136 

84.  Metope  from  Selinus.  Palermo 137 

85.  Archaic  Victory  (?)  from  Delos.  Athens,  National 

Museum 139 

86.  Lower  Part  of  Archaic  Sculptured  Column  from 

Ephesus.  London,  British  Museum 141 

87.  Relief  from  the  “ Harpy  ” Tomb.  London,  British 

Museum 145 

88.  Grave-Monument  of  Aristion.  Athens,  National 

Museum 146 

89.  Archaic  Female  Figure.  Athens,  Acropolis  Mu- 

seum   148 


X 


Illustrations . 


FIGURE.  PAGE. 


90.  Statue  by  Antenor  (?).  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum.  149 

91.  Archaic  Female  Figure.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum.  150 

92.  Upper  Part  of  Archaic  Female  Figure.  Athens, 

Acropolis  Museum 151 

93.  Archaic  Female  Figure.  Athens,  Acropolis  Mu- 

seum   152 

94.  Fragment  of  Archaic  Female  Figure.  Athens, 

Acropolis  Museum 153 

95.  Fragment  of  Archaic  Female  Figure.  Athens, 

Acropolis  Museum 154 

96.  Head  of  a Youth.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum  . . . 155 

97.  Fragment  of  Frieze  from  the  Treasury  of  the  Siphni- 

ans.  Delphi 156 

98.  Figures  from  the  Western  Pediment  of  the  A^ginetan 

Temple.  Munich 156 

99.  Dying  Warrior  from  the  Eastern  Pediment  of  the 

yEginetan  Temple.  Munich 157 

100.  Strangford  “Apollo.”  London,  British  Museum.  158 

101.  Harmodius  and  Aristogiton.  Naples 161 

102.  Relief  on  a Marble  Throne.  Broom  Hall,  near  Dun- 

fermline, Scotland 163 

103.  “ Apollo  on  the  Omphalos.”  Athens,  National  Mu- 

seum   165 

104.  Copy  of  the  Discobolus  of  Myron.  Rome,  Lancellotti 

Palace 167 

105.  Bust,  probably  after  Myron.  Florence,  Riccardi 

Palace 170 

106.  Satyr,  probably  after  Myron.  Rome,  Lateran  Mu- 

seum   171 

107.  Portion  of  Doric  Frieze  with  Sculptured  Metopes, 

from  Selinus.  Palermo 172 

108.  CEnomaus  and  Sterope.  Olympia 173 

109.  Elderly  Man.  Olympia 174 

no.  Head  of  Apollo.  Olympia 175 

in.  Lapith  Bride  and  Centaur.  Olympia 176 

1 1 2.  Lapith  and  Centaur.  Olympia 177 

1 13.  Atlas  Metope.  Olympia 179 

1 14.  Head  of  Athena  (?),  from  Lion  Metope.  Olympia.  . 180 

115.  The  Giustiniani  “Vesta.”  Rome,  Torlonia  Palace.  t8i 

1 16.  The  “ Spinario.”  Rome,  Palace  of  the  Conservatori.  182 


Illustrations . 


xi 


FIGURE.  PAGE. 

1 17.  Bronze  Coin  of  Elis  (enlarged) 186 

1 18.  Reduced  Copy  of  the  Athena  of  the  Parthenon. 

Athens,  National  Museum 187 

1 19.  Athena.  Dresden 188 

120.  Head  of  Athena.  Bologna 189 

121.  Parthenon  Metope.  London,  British  Museum  . . . 191 

122.  Parthenon  Metope.  London,  British  Museum  . . . 191 

123.  Parthenon  Metope.  London,  British  Museum  . . . 192 

124.  Portion  of  Slab  of  Parthenon  Frieze  (east).  Athens, 

Acropolis  Museum 193 

125.  Slab  of  Parthenon  Frieze  (north).  Athens,  Acropo- 

lis Museum 194 

126.  Portions  of  Two  Slabs  of  Parthenon  Frieze  (north). 

London,  British  Museum 195 

127.  Heads  of  Chariot-Horses,  from  Parthenon  Frieze 

(south).  London,  British  Museum 196 

128.  So-called  “Theseus”  of  the  Parthenon.  London, 

British  Museum 197 

129.  Group  of  Pediment-Figures  from  the  Parthenon. 

London,  British  Museum 198 

130.  So-called  “Ilissos”  of  the  Parthenon:  London, 

British  Museum 198 

131.  Head  of  Pericles.  London,  British  Museum  . . . . 199 

132.  Caryatid  from  the  Erechtheum.  London,  British 

Museum 201 

133.  Relief  of  a Victory.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum  . . 202 

134.  Grave-Relief  of  Hegeso.  Athens,  Dipylon  Cemetery  203 

135.  Attic  Grave-Relief.  Rome,  Villa  Albani 204 

136.  Relief  representing  Orpheus,  Eurydice,  and  Hermes. 

Naples 205 

137.  Copy  of  the  Doryphorus  of  Polyclitus.  Naples  . . 207 

138.  Bronze  Copy  of  the  Head  of  the  Doryphorus.  Naples  208 

139.  Head  of  a Boy,  after  Polyclitus.  Dresden 209 

140.  Wounded  Amazon,  perhaps  after  Polyclitus.  Berlin.  210 

141.  Head  from  the  Argive  Heraeum.  Athens,  National 

Museum 211 

142.  The  “Idolino.”  Florence,  Archaeological  Museum  . 212 

143.  Victory  of  Paeonius.  Olympia 213 

144.  Victory  of  Paeonius,  Restored 214 

145.  Head  from  Tegea.  Athens,  National  Museum  . . . 216 


xii 


Illustrations . 


FIGURE.  PAGE. 

146.  Head  of  Meleager.  Rome,  Villa  Medici 217 

147.  Head  of  a Goddess.  Athens,  National  Museum  . . 218 

148.  Eirene  and  Plutus.  Munich 219 

149.  Hermes,  by  Praxiteles.  Olympia 220 

150.  Head  and  Body  of  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles. 

Olympia 221 

151.  Copy  of  the  Head  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Cnidus.  Ber- 

lin, in  private  possession 224 

152.  Copy  of  the  Apollo  Sauroctonos.  Rome,  Vatican 

Museum 225 

153.  Leaning  Satyr.  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum  ....  226 

154.  Satyr  Pouring  Wine.  Palermo 227 

155.  Relief  from  Mantinea.  Athens,  National  Museum  . 228 

156.  Artemis,  called  the  Diana  of  Gabii.  Paris,  Louvre  . 229 

157.  Niobe  and  a Daughter  of  Niobe.  Florence,  Uffizi  . 230 

158.  A Son  of  Niobe.  Florence,  Uffizi 231 

159.  Mounted  Amazon.  Athens,  National  Museum  . . . 232 

160.  Slab  of  Mausoleum  Frieze.  London,  British  Museum  233 

161.  Slab  of  Mausoleum  Frieze.  London,  British  Museum  233 

162.  Sarcophagus  of  “ The  Mourning  Women.”  Constan- 

tinople   234 

163.  Sculptured  Drum  of  Column  from  Ephesus.  Lon- 

don, British  Museum 236 

164.  Sophocles.  Rome,  Lateran  Museum 237 

165.  Head  of  Zeus.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum 238 

166.  Copy  of  the  Apoxyomenos  of  Lysippus.  Rome, 

Vatican  Museum 240 

167.  Head  of  the  Apoxyomenos 241 

168.  Head  of  Alexander.  Paris,  Louvre . 242 

169.  Three  Tanagra  Figurines.  London,  British  Museum  244 

170.  Three  Tanagra  Figurines.  London,  British  Museum  245 

171.  The  “ Alexander  ” Sarcophagus.  Constantinople  . 246 

172.  Victory  of  Samothrace.  Paris,  Louvre 248 

173.  The  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  Paris,  Louvre 250 

174.  The  Apollo  of  the  Belvedere.  Rome,  Vatican  Mu- 

seum   252 

175.  Posidippus.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum 253 

176.  Head  of  Homer.  Naples 254 

177.  Seated  Boxer.  Rome,  Museo  delle  Terme 255 

178.  Boy  and  Goose.  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum  ....  256 


Illustrations . xiii 


FIGURE.  PAGE. 

179.  Tipsy  Old  Woman.  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum  . . 257 

180.  Praying  Boy.  Berlin 258 

181.  Hellenistic  Relief.  Vienna 259 

182.  Hellenistic  Relief.  Vienna 260 

183.  Dying  Gaul.  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum 261 

184.  Head  of  Dying  Gaul 262 

185.  Group  from  the  Altar  of  Pergamum.  Berlin  ....  263 

186.  Group  from  the  Altar  of  Pergamum.  Berlin  ....  264 

187.  Laocoon  and  His  Sons.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum  . . 265 

188.  The  Francois  Vase.  Florence,  Archaeological  Mu- 

seum   269 

189.  Detail  from  the  Francois  Vase 270 

190.  Design  from  an  Amphora  of  Execias.  London, 

British  Museum 272 

191.  Design  from  a Cylix  of  Euphronius.  London,  British 

Museum 274 

192.  Cylix.  London,  British  Museum 275 

193.  Detail  from  a Painted  Sarcophagus.  Florence, 

Archaeological  Museum 285 

194.  Portrait  of  a Man,  from  the  Fayyum 286 

195.  Portrait  of  a Girl,  from  the  Fayyum 287 

196.  Portrait  of  a Young  Woman,  from  the  Fayyum  . . . 288 


A HISTORY  OF  GREEK  ART. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ART  IN  EGYPT  AND  MESOPOTAMIA. 

The  history  of  Egypt,  from  the  time  of  the  earliest 
extant  monuments  to  the  absorption  of  the  country  in 
the  Roman  Empire,  covers  a space  of  some  thousands 
of  years.  This  long  period  was  not  one  of  stagnation. 
It  is  only  in  proportion  to  our  ignorance  that  life  in 
ancient  Egypt  seems  to  have  been  on  one  dull,  dead 
level.  Dynasties  rose  and  fell.  Foreign  invaders  occu- 
pied the  land  and  were  expelled  again.  Customs,  cos- 
tumes, beliefs,  institutions,  underwent  changes.  Of 
course,  then,  art  did  not  remain  stationary.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  had  marked  vicissitudes,  now  displaying  great 
freshness  and  vigor,  now  uninspired  and  monotonous, 
now  seemingly  dead,  and  now  reviving  to  new  activity. 
In  Babylonia  we  deal  with  perhaps  even  remoter  periods 
of  time,  but  the  artistic  remains  at  present  known  from 
that  quarter  are  comparatively  scanty.  From  Assyria, 
however,  the  daughter  of  Babylonia,  materials  abound, 
and  the  history  of  that  country  can  be  written  in  detail 
for  a period  of  several  centuries.  Naturally,  then,  even 
a mere  sketch  of  Egyptian,  Babylonian,  and  Assyrian 
art  would  require  much  more  space  than  is  here  at  dis- 
posal. All  that  can  be  attempted  is  to  present  a few 
examples  and  suggest  a few  general  notions.  The  main 
purpose  will  be  to  make  clearer  by  comparison  and  con- 


15 


i6 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


trast  the  essential  qualities  of  Greek  art,  to  which  this 
volume  is  devoted. 

I begin  with  Egypt,  and  offer  at  the  outset  a table 
of  the  most  important  periods  of  Egyptian  history.  The 
dates  are  taken  from  the  sketch  prefixed  to  the  cata- 
logue of  Egyptian  antiquities  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  In 
using  them  the  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  earlier 
Egyptian  chronology  is  highly  uncertain.  Thus  the 
date  here  suggested  for  the  Old  Empire,  while  it  cannot 
be  too  early,  may  be  a thousand  years  too  late.  As  we 
come  down,  the  margin  of  possible  error  grows  less  and 
less.  The  figures  assigned  to  the  New  Empire  are 
regarded  as  trustworthy  within  a century  or  two.  But 
only  when  we  reach  the  Saite  dynasty  do  we  get  a really 
precise  chronology. 

Chief  Periods  of  Egyptian  History  : 

Old  Empire,  with  capital  at  Memphis  ; Dynasties  4-5 
(2800-2500  B.  C.  or  earlier)  and  Dynasty  6. 

Middle  Empire,  with  capital  at  Thebes  ; Dynasties 
11-13  (2200-1800  B.  C.  or  earlier). 

New  Empire,  with  capital  at  Thebes  ; Dynasties  17-20 
(ca.  1600-1100B.  C. ). 

Saite  Period  ; Dynasty  26  (663-525  B.  C. ). 

One  of  the  earliest  Egyptian  sculptures  now  existing, 
though  certainly  not  earlier  than  the  Fourth  Dynasty, 
is  the  great  Sphinx  of  Gizeh  (Fig.  1).  The  creature 
crouches  in  the  desert,  a few  miles  to  the  north  of  the 
ancient  Memphis,  just  across  the  Nile  from  the  modern 
city  of  Cairo.  With  the  body  of  a lion  and  the  head  of 
a man,  it  represented  a solar  deity  and  was  an  object  of 
worship.  It  is  hewn  from  the  living  rock  and  is  of  colos- 
sal size,  the  height  from  the  base  to  the  top  of  the  head 


Fic.  i. -The  Great  Sphinx  and  the  Pyramids  of  Cheops  and  Chephren.  Gizeh. 


i8 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


being  about  70  feet  and  the  length  of  the  body  about 
150  feet.  The  paws  and  breast  were  originally  covered 
with  a limestone  facing.  The  present  dilapidated  condi- 
tion of  the  monument  is  due  partly  to  the  tooth  of 
time,  but  still  more  to  wanton  mutilation  at  the  hands 
of  fanatical  Mohammedans.  The  body  is  now  almost 
shapeless.  The  nose,  the  beard,  and  the  lower  part  of 
the  head-dress  are  gone.  The  face  is  seamed  with 
scars.  Yet  the  strange  monster  still  preserves  a mys- 
terious dignity,  as  though  it  were  guardian  of  all  the 
secrets  of  ancient  Egypt,  but  disdained  to  betray  them. 

‘ ‘ The  art  which  conceived  and  carved  this  prodigious 
statue,”  says  Professor  Maspero,*  “was  a finished  art  ; 
an  art  which  had  attained  self-mastery,  and  was  sure  of 
its  effects.  How  many  centuries  had  it  taken  to  arrive 
at  this  degree  of  maturity  and  perfection  ? ” It  is  im- 
possible to  guess.  The  long  process  of  self-schooling  in 
artistic  methods  which  must  have  preceded  this  work  is 
hidden  from  us.  We  cannot  trace  the  progress  of  Egyp- 
tian art  from  its  timid,  awkward  beginnings  to  the  days 
of  its  conscious  power,  as  we  shall  find  ourselves  able  to 
do  in  the  case  of  Greek  art.  The  evidence  is  annihi- 
lated, or  is  hidden  beneath  the  sand  of  the  desert,  per- 
haps to  be  one  day  revealed.  Should  that  day  come,  a 
new  first  chapter  in  the  history  of  Egyptian  art  will  have 
to  be  written. 

There  are  several  groups  of  pyramids,  large  and 
small,  at  Gizeh  and  elsewhere,  almost  all  of  which  be- 
long to  the  Old  Empire.  The  three  great  pyramids  of 
Gizeh  are  among  the  earliest.  They  were  built  by  three 
kings  of  the  Fourth  Dynasty,  Cheops  (Chufu),  Chephren 
(Chafre),  and  Mycerinus  (Menkere).  They  are  gigan- 
tic sepulchral  monuments,  in  which  the  mummies  of  the 

♦“  Manual  of  Egyptian  Archaeology,”  second  edition,  1895,  page  208. 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia. 


19 


kings  who  built  them  were  deposited.  The  pyramid  of 
Cheops  (Fig.  i,  at  the  right),  the  largest  of  all,  was 
originally  481  feet  4 inches  in  height,  and  was  thus 
doubtless  the  loftiest  structure  ever  reared  in  pre- 
Christian  times.  The  side  of  the  square  base  measured 
755  feet  8 inches.  The  pyramidal  mass  consists  in  the 
main  of  blocks  of  limestone,  and  the  exterior  was  origi- 
nally cased  with  fine  limestone,  so  that  the  surfaces  were 
perfectly  smooth.  At  present  the  casing  is  gone,  and 
instead  of  a sharp  point  at  the  top  there  is  a platform 
about  thirty  feet  square.  In  the  heart  of  the  mass  was 
the  granite  chamber  where  the  king’s  mummy  was  laid. 
It  was  reached  by  an  ingenious  system  of  passages, 
strongly  barricaded.  Yet  all  these  precautions  were  in- 
effectual to  save  King  Cheops  from  the  hand  of  the 
spoiler.  Chephren’s  pyramid  (Fig.  1,  at  the  left)  is 
not  much  smaller  than  that  of  Cheops,  its  present  height 
being  about  450  feet,  while  the  height  of  the  third  of  this 
group,  that  of  Mycerinus,  is  about  210  feet.  No  won- 
der that  the  pyramids  came  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
seven  wonders  of  the  world. 

While  kings  erected  pyramids  to  serve  as  their  tombs, 
officials  of  high  rank  were  buried  in,  or  rather  under, 
structures  of  a different  type,  now  commonly  known 
under  the  Arabic  name  of  mastabas.  The  mastaba  may 
be  described  as  a block  of  masonry  of  limestone  or  sun- 
dried  brick,  oblong  in  plan,  with  the  sides  built  “ batter- 
ing,” i.  e.y  sloping  inward,  and  with  a flat  top.  It  had 
no  architectural  merits  to  speak  of,  and  therefore  need 
not  detain  us.  It  is  worth  remarking,  however,  that 
some  of  these  mastabas  contain  genuine  arches,  formed 
of  unbaked  bricks.  The  knowledge  and  use  of  the  arch 
in  Egypt  go  back  then  to  at  least  the  period  of  the  Old 
Empire.  But  the  chief  interest  of  the  mastabas  lies  in 


20 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


the  fact  that  they  have  preserved  to  us  most  of  what  we 
possess  of  early  Egyptian  sculpture.  For  in  a small, 

inaccessible  cham- 
ber ( serdab ) re- 
served in  the  mass 
of  masonry  were 
placed  one  or  more 
portrait  statues  of 
the  owner,  and  of- 
ten of  his  wife  and 
other  members  of 
his  household,  while 
the  walls  of  an- 
other and  larger 
chamber,  which 
served  as  a chapel 
for  the  celebration 
of  funeral  rites,  were 
often  covered  with 
painted  bas-reliefs, 
representing  scenes 
from  the  owner’s  life 
or  whatever  in  the 
way  of  funeral  offer- 
ing and  human 
activity  could  min- 
ister to  his  happi- 
ness. 

One  of  the  best  of 
the  portrait  statues 
of  this  period  is  the 
famous  “ Sheikh-el- 

fig.  2. — The  “ Sheikh-el-beled.,>  Beled  (Chief  of 

Gizeh  Museum.  the  Village),  attrib- 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


21 


uted  to  the  Fourth  or  Fifth 
Dynasty  (Fig.  2).  The 
name  was  given  by  the 
Arab  workmen,  who,  when 
the  figure  was  first  brought 
to  light  in  the  cemetery  of 
Sakkarah,  thought  they 
saw  in  it  the  likeness  of 
their  own  sheikh.  The 
man’s  real  name,  if  he  was 
the  owner  of  the  mastaba 
from  whose  serdab  he  was 
taken,  was  Ra-em-ka.  The 
figure  is  less  than  life-sized, 
being  a little  over  three 
and  one  half  feet  in  height. 
It  is  of  wood,  a common 
material  for  sculpture  in 
Egypt.  The  arms  were 
made  separately  (the  left 
of  two  pieces)  and  attached 
at  the  shoulders.  The  feet, 
which  had  decayed,  have 
been  restored.  Originally 
the  figure  was  covered  with 
a coating  of  linen,  and  this 
with  stucco,  painted.  “The 
eyeballs  are  of  opaque 
white  quartz,  set  in  a 
bronze  sheath,  which  forms 
the  eyelids  ; in  the  center 
of  each  there  is  a bit  of  rock-crystal,  and  behind  this  a 
shining  nail”* — a contrivance  which  produces  a marvel- 


Fig.  3.— RA-noFER.  Gizeh  Museum. 


*Musee  de  Gizeh : Notice  Sommaire  (1892). 


22 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


ously  realistic  effect.  The  same  thing,  or  something 
like  it,  is  to  be  seen  in  other  statues  of  the  period.  The 
attitude  of  Ra-em-ka  is  the  usual  one  of  Egyptian  stand- 
ing figures  of  all  periods  : the  left  leg  is  advanced  ; both 
feet  are  planted  flat  on  the  ground  ; body  and  head  face 
squarely  forward.  The  only  deviation  from  the  most 
usual  type  is  in  the  left  arm,  which  is  bent  at  the  elbow, 
that  the  hand  may  grasp  the  staff  of  office.  More  often 
the  arms  both  hang  at  the  sides,  the  hands  clenched,  as 
in  the  admirable  limestone  figure  of  the  priest,  Ra-nofer 

(Fig.  3). 

The  cross-legged  scribe  of  the  Louvre  (Fig.  4)  illus- 
trates another  and  less  stereotyped  attitude.  This  figure 
was  found  in  the  tomb  of  one  Sekhem-ka,  along  with  two 
statues  of  the  owner  and  a group  of  the  owner,  his  wife, 
and  son.  The  scribe  was  presumably  in  the  employ  of 
Sekhem-ka.  The  figure  is  of  limestone,  the  commonest 
material  for  these  sepulchral  statues,  and,  according  to  the 
unvarying  practice,  was  completely  covered  with  color, 
still  in  good  preservation.  The  flesh  is  of  a reddish 
brown,  the  regular  color  for  men.  The  eyes  are  similar  to 
those  of  the  Sheikh-el-Beled.  The  man  is  seated  with  his 
legs  crossed  under  him ; a strip  of  papyrus,  held  by  his 
left  hand,  rests  upon  his  lap  ; his  right  hand  held  a pen. 

The  head  shown  in  Fig.  5 belongs  to  a group,  if  we 
may  give  that  name  to  two  figures  carved  from  sepa- 
rate blocks  of  limestone  and  seated  stiffly  side  by  side. 
Egyptian  sculpture  in  the  round  never  created  a gen- 
uine, integral  group,  in  which  two  or  more  figures  are 
so  combined  that  no  one  is  intelligible  without  the  rest  ; 
that  achievement  was  reserved  for  the  Greeks.  The 
lady  in  this  case  was  a princess  ; her  husband,  by  whom 
she  sits,  a high  priest  of  Heliopolis.  She  is  dressed  in 
a long,  white  smock,  in  which  there  is  no  indication 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia. 


23 


of  folds.  On  her  head  is  a wig,  from  under  which,  in 
front,  her  own  hair  shows.  Her  flesh  is  yellow,  the 
conventional  tint  for  women,  as  brownish  red  was  for 
men.  Her  eyes  are  made  of  glass. 

The  specimens  given  have  been  selected  with  the 
purpose  of 
showing  the 
sculpture  of  the 
Old  Empire  at 
its  best.  The  all- 
important  fact 
to  notice  is  the 
realism  of  these 
portraits.  We 
shall  see  that 
Greek  sculp- 
ture throughout 
its  great  period 
tends  toward 
the  typical  and 
the  ideal  in  the 
human  face  and 
figure.  Not  so 
in  Egypt.  Here 
the  task  of  the 
artist  was  to  make  a counterfeit  presentment  of  his  sub- 
ject and  he  has  achieved  his  task  at  times  with  marvelous 
skill.  Especially  the  heads  of  the  best  statues  have  an 
individuality  and  lifelikeness  which  have  hardly  been 
surpassed  in  any  age.  But  let  not  our  admiration  blind 
us  to  the  limitations  of  Egyptian  art.  The  sculptor 
never  attains  to  freedom  in  the  posing  of  his  figures. 
Whether  the  subject  sits,  stands,  kneels,  or  squats,  the 
body  and  head  always  face  directly  forward.  And  we 


Fig.  4.— Cross-legged  Scribe.  Paris,  Louvre. 


24  A History  of  Greek  Art . 


look  in  vain  for  any  appreciation  on  the  sculptor’s  part 
of  the  beauty  of  the  athletic  body  or  of  the  artistic  pos- 
sibilities of  drapery. 

There  is  more  variety  of  pose  in  the  painted  bas-re- 
liefs with  which  the  walls  of  the  mastaba  chapels  are 
covered.  Here  are  scenes  of  agriculture,  cattle-tending, 
fishing,  bread-making,  and  so  on,  represented  with  ad- 
mirable vivac- 
ity, though  with 
certain  fixed 
conventionali- 
ties of  style. 
There  are  end- 
less entertain- 
ment and  in- 
struction for  us 
in  these  pictures 
of  old  Egyptian 
life.  Yet  no 
more  here  than 
in  the  portrait 
statues  do  we 
find  a feeling 
for  beauty  of 
form  or  a po- 
etic, idealizing 

Fig.  5.— Head  of  Nefert.  Gizeh  Museum.  1 

touch. 

As  from  the  Old  Empire,  so  from  the  Middle  Empire, 
almost  the  only  works  of  man  surviving  to  us  are  tombs 
and  their  contents.  These  tombs  have  no  longer  the 
simple  mastaba  form,  but  are  either  built  up  of  sun-dried 
brick  in  the  form  of  a block  capped  by  a pyramid  or  are 
excavated  in  the  rock.  The  former  class  offers  little 
interest  from  the  architectural  point  of  view.  But  some 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


25 


of  the  rock-cut  tombs  of  Beni-hasan,  belonging  to  the 
Twelfth  Dynasty,  exhibit  a feature  which  calls  for  men- 
tion. These  tombs  have  been  so  made  as  to  leave  pil- 
lars of  the  living  rock  standing,  both  at  the  entrance  and 

in  the  chapel.  The  simplest 
of  these  pillars  are  square  in 
plan  and  somewhat  tapering. 
Others,  by  the  chamfering 
off  of  their  edges,  have  been 
made  eight-sided.  A repe- 
tition of  the  process  gave 
sixteen-sided  pillars.  The 
sixteen  sides  were  then  hol- 
lowed out  (channeled).  The 
result  is  illustrated  by  Fig. 
6.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  pillar  has  a low,  round 
base,  with  beveled  edge  ; 
also,  at  the  top,  a square 
abacus,  which  is  simply  a 
piece  of  the  original  four- 
sided pillar,  left  untouched. 
Such  polygonal  pillars  as 
these  are  commonly  called 
proto-Doric  columns.  The 
name  was  given  in  the  belief 
that  these  were  the  models 
from  which  the  Greeks  de- 
rived their  Doric  columns, 

Fig.  6.-“ Proto-Doric”  Column,  and  this  belief  is  Still  held 
Beni-hasan.  . ... 

by  many  authorities. 

With  the  New  Empire  we  begin  to  have  numerous 
and  extensive  remains  of  temples,  while  those  of  an 
earlier  date  have  mostly  disappeared.  Fig.  7 may 


26  • 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


afford  some  notion  of  what  an  Egyptian  temple  was  like. 
This  one  is  at  Luxor,  on  the  site  of  ancient  Thebes  in 
Upper  Egypt.  It  is  one  of  the  largest  of  all,  being  over 
800  feet  in  length.  Like  many  others,  it  was  not  orig- 
inally planned  on  its  present  scale,  but  represents  two  or 
three  successive  periods  of  construction,  Ramses  II.,  of 
the  Nineteenth  Dynasty,  having  given  it  its  final  form 
by  adding  to  an  already  finished  building  all  that  now 
stands  before  the  second  pair  of  towers.  As  so  ex- 
tended, the  building  has  three  pylons,  as  they  are 


Fig.  7. — Temple  of  Luxor,  Restored. 

(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “Art  in  Ancient  Egypt,”  Vol.  I.,  Fig.  218.) 


called,  pylon  being  the  name  for  the  pair  of  sloping- 
sided towers  with  gateway  between.  Behind  the  first 
pylon  comes  an  open  court  surrounded  by  a cloister 
with  double  rows  of  columns.  The  second  and  third 
pylons  are  connected  with  one  another  by  a covered 
passage — an  exceptional  feature.  Then  comes  a second 
open  court  ; then  a hypostyle  hall,  i . e. , a hall  with  flat 
roof  supported  by  columns  ; and  finally,  embedded  in 
the  midst  of  various  chambers,  the  relatively  small 
sanctuary,  inaccessible  to  all  save  the  king  and  the 
priests.  Notice  the  double  line  of  sphinxes  flanking  the 
avenue  of  approach,  the  two  granite  obelisks  at  the  en- 
trance, and  the  four  colossal  seated  figures  in  granite 
representing  Ramses  II. — all  characteristic  features. 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


27 


Fig.  8 is  taken  from  a neighboring  and  still  more 
gigantic  temple,  that  of  Karnak.  Imagine  an  immense 
hall,  170  feet  deep  by  329  feet  broad.  Down  the  middle 


Fig.  8.— View  through  Hypostyle  Hall.  Karnak. 

run  two  rows  of  six  columns  each  (the  nearest  ones  in 
the  picture  have  been  restored),  nearly  seventy  feet 
high.  They  have  campaniform  (bell-shaped)  capitals. 


28 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


On  either  side  are  seven  rows  of  shorter  columns,  some- 
what more  than  forty  feet  high.  These,  as  may  be 
indistinctly  seen  at  the  right  of  our  picture,  have  capi- 
tals of  a different  type,  called,  from 
their  origin  rather  than  from  their 
actual  appearance,  lotiform  or  lotus- 
bud  capitals.  There  was  a clere- 
story over  the  four  central  rows  of 
columns,  with  windows  in  its  walls. 
The  general  plan,  therefore,  of  this 
hypostyle  hall  has  some  resem- 
blance to  that  of  a Christian  basil- 
ica, but  the  columns  are  much  more 
numerous  and  closely  set.  Walls 
and  columns  were  covered  with 
hieroglyphic  texts  and  sculptured 
and  painted  scenes.  The  total 
effect  of  this  colossal  piece  of  archi- 
tecture, even  in  its  ruin,  is  one  of 
overwhelming  majesty.  No  other 
work  of  human  hands  strikes  the 
beholder  with  such  a sense  of  awe. 

Fig.  9 is  a restoration  of  one  of 
the  central  columns  of  this  hall. 
Except  for  one  fault,  say  Messrs. 
Perrot  and  Chipiez,*  “ this  column 
fig.  9.— Column  of  hy-  would  be  one  of  the  most  admirable 

postyle  Hall.  Karnak.  creations  of  art  . it  would  hardly 
(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  # 7 J 

“Artin  Ancient  Egypt,”  be  inferior  to  the  most  perfect  col- 
umns  of  Greece.’’  The  one  fault — 
a grave  one  to  a critical  eye — is  the  meaningless  and 
inappropriate  block  inserted  between  the  capital  and 

* “ Histoire  de  l’Art : Egypte,”  page  576.  The  translation  given  above  dif- 
fers from  that  in  the  English  edition  of  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “ Art  in  Ancient 
Egypt,”  Vol.  II.,  page  123. 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia. 


29 


the  horizontal  beam  which  it  is  the  function  of  the  col- 
umn to  support.  The  type  of  column  used  in  the  side 
aisles  of  the  hall  at  Karnak  is  illustrated  by  Fig.  10, 
taken  from  another  temple.  It  is  much  less  admirable, 

the  contraction  of  the 
capital  toward  the  top 
producing  an  unpleasant 
effect. 

Other  specimens  of 
these  two  types  of  col- 
umn vary  widely  from 
those  of  Karnak,  for 
Egyptian  architects  did 
not  feel  obliged,  like 
Greek  architects,  to  con- 
form, with  but  slight  lib- 
erty of  deviation,  to  estab- 
lished canons  of  form  and 
proportion.  Nor  are 
these  two  by  any  means 
the  only  forms  of  sup- 
port used  in  the  temple 
architecture  of  the  New 
Empire.  The  “proto- 
Doric”  column  continued 
in  favor  under  the  New 
Empire,  though  appar- 
ently not  later  ; we  find 
it,  for  example,  in  some 
of  the  outlying  buildings 
the  column  whose  capital 


Fig.  10. — Column  of  Medinet  Habu. 
(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “Art  in 
Ancient  Egypt,”  Vol.  II.,  Fig.  78.) 


at  Karnak.  Then  there  was 
was  adorned  with  four  heads  in  relief  of  the  goddess 
Hathor,  not  to  speak  of  other  varieties.  Whatever  the 
precise  form  of  the  support,  it  was  always  used  to  carry 


30 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


a horizontal  beam.  Although  the  Egyptians  were 
familiar  from  very  early  times  with  the  principle  of  the 
arch,  and  although  examples  of  its  use  occur  often 
enough  under  the  New  Empire,  we  do  not  find  columns 
or  piers  used,  as  in  Gothic  architecture,  to  carry  a 
vaulting.  In  fact,  the  genuine  vault  is  absent  from 
Egyptian  temple  architecture,  although  in  the  Temple 
of  Abydos  false  or  corbelled  vaults  ff.  page  49)  do 
occur. 

Egyptian  architects  were  not  gifted  with  a fine  feeling 
for  structural  propriety  or  unity.  A few  of  their  small 
temples  are  simple  and  coherent  in  plan  and  fairly  taste- 
ful in  details.  But  it  is  significant  that  a temple  could 
always  be  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  parts  not  contem- 
plated in  the  original  design.  The  result  in  such  a case 
was  a vast,  rambling  edifice,  whose  merits  consisted  in 
the  imposing  character  of  individual  parts,  rather  than  in 
an  organic  and  symmetrical  relation  of  parts  to  whole. 

Statues  of  the  New  Empire  are  far  more  numerous 
than  those  of  any  other  period,  but  few  of  them  will 
compare  in  excellence  with  the  best  of  those  of  the  Old 
Empire.  Colossal  figures  of  kings  abound,  chiseled 
with  infinite  patience  from  granite  and  other  obdurate 
rocks.  All  these  and  others  may  be  passed  over  in 
order  to  make  room  for  a statue  in  the  Louvre  (Fig. 
11),  which  is  chosen,  not  because  of  its  artistic  merits, 
but  because  of  its  material  and  its  subject.  It  is  of 
bronze,  somewhat  over  three  feet  in  height,  thus  being 
the  largest  Egyptian  bronze  statue  known.  It  was  cast  in 
a single  piece,  except  for  the  arms,  which  were  cast  sep- 
arately and  attached.  The  date  of  it  is  in  dispute,  one 
authority  assigning  it  to  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty  and 
another  bringing  it  down  as  late  as  the  seventh  century 
B.  C.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  art  of  casting  hollow 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


3i 


bronze  figures  is  of  high  antiquity  in  Egypt.  The  figure 
represents  a hawk-headed  god,  Horus,  who  once  held 
up  some  object,  probably  a vase  for  libations.  Egyptian 
divinities  are  often  represented  with  the  heads  of  ani- 
mals— Anubis  with  the  head  of  a jackal,  Hathor  with 
that  of  a cow,  Sebek  with  that  of  a crocodile,  and  so  on. 
This  in  itself  shows  a lack  of  nobility  in  the  popular 


theology.  Moreover  it  is  clear 
sculptors  were  engaged  upon 
queens  and  other  human  be- 
ings, not  upon  figures  of  the 
gods.  The  latter  exist  by  the 
thousand,  to  be  sure,  but  they 
are  generally  small  statuettes, 
a few  inches  high,  in  bronze, 
wood,  or  faience.  And  even  if 
sculptors  had  been  encouraged 
to  do  their  best  in  bodying  forth 
the  forms  of  gods,  they  would 
hardly  have  achieved  high  suc- 
cess. The  exalted  imagination 
was  lacking. 

Among  the  innumerable 
painted  bas-reliefs  covering  the 
walls  of  tombs  and  temples, 
those  of  the  great  Temple  of 
Abydos  in  Upper  Egypt  hold  a 
high  place.  One  enthusiastic 
art  critic  has  gone  so  far  as  to 
pronounce  them  ‘ ‘the  most  per- 
fect, the  most  noble  bas-reliefs 
ever  chiseled.’ ’ A specimen  of 
this  work,  now,  alas  ! more  de- 
faced than  is  here  shown,  is 


that  the  best  talents  of 
portraits  of  kings  and 


Fig.  ii.— Bronze  Statue  of  Horus. 
Paris,  Louvre. 

(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “ Art  in  Ancient 
Egypt*”1  Vol.  I.,  Fig.  44.) 


32 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


given  in  Fig.  12.  King  Seti  I.  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty 
stands  in  an  attitude  of  homage  before  a seated  divinity, 


Fig.  12.— Bas-relief.  Abydos. 

(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  ‘‘Art  in  Ancient  Egypt,”  Vol.  I.,  PI.  III.) 

of  whom  almost  nothing  appears  in  the  illustration.  On 
the  palm  of  his  right  hand  he  holds  a figure  of  Maat, 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia. 


33 


goddess  of  truth.  In  front  of  him  is  a libation-standard, 
on  which  rests  a bunch  of  lotus  flowers,  buds,  and  leaver 
The  first  remark  to  be  made  about  this  work  is  that  it  is 
genuine  relief.  The  forms  are  everywhere  modeled, 
whereas  in  much  of  what  is  commonly  called  bas-relief  in 
Egypt,  the  figures  are  only  outlined  and  the  spaces 
within  the  outlines  are  left  flat.  As  regards  the  treat- 
ment of  the  human  figure,  we  have  here  the  stereotyped 
Egyptian  conventions.  The  head,  except  the  eye,  is  in 
profile,  the  shoulders  in  front  view,  the  abdomen  in  three- 
quarters  view,  the  legs  again  in  profile.  As  a result  of 
the  distortion  of  the  body,  the  arms  are  badly  attached 
at  the  shoulders.  Furthermore  the  hands,  besides 
being  very  badly  drawn,  have  in  this  instance  the  ap- 
pearance of  being  mismated  with  the  arms,  while  both 
feet  look  like  right  feet.  The  dress  consists  of  the  usual 
loin-cloth  and  of  a thin,  transparent  over-garment,  indi- 
cated only  by  a line  in  front  and  below.  Now  surely  no 
one  will  maintain  that  these  methods  and  others  of  like 
sort  which  there  is  no  opportunity  here  to  illustrate  are 
the  most  artistic  ever  devised.  Nevertheless  serious 
technical  faults  and  shortcomings  may  coexist  with  great 
merits  of  composition  and  expression.  So  it  is  in  this 
relief  of  Seti.  The  design  is  stamped  with  unusual  re- 
finement and  grace.  The  theme  is  hackneyed  enough, 
but  its  treatment  here  raises  it  above  the  level  of  com- 
monplace. 

Egyptian  bas-reliefs  were  always  completely  covered 
with  paint,  laid  on  in  uniform  tints.  Paintings  on  a flat 
surface  differ  in  no  essential  respect  from  these  painted 
bas-reliefs.  The  conventional  and  untruthful  methods 
of  representing  the  human  form,  as  well  as  other  objects 
— buildings,  landscapes,  etc. — are  the  same  in  the  for- 
mer as  in  the  latter.  The  coloring,  too,  is  of  the  same 


34 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


sort,  there  being  no  attempt  to  render  gradations  of 
color  due  to  the  play  of  light  and  shade.  Fig.  13,  a lute- 
player  from  a royal  tomb  of  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty, 
illustrates  some  of  these  points.  The  reader  who  would 

form  an  idea 
of  the  compo- 
sition of  exten- 
sive scenes  must 
consult  works 
more  especially 
devoted  to 
Egypt ian  art. 
He  will  be  re- 
warded  with 
many  a vivid 
picture  of 
ancient  Egyp- 
tian life. 

Art  was  at  a 
low  ebb  in 
Egypt  during 
the  centuries  of 
Libyan  and 
Ethiopian  dom- 
ination which  succeeded  the  New  Empire.  There 
was  a revival  under  the  Saite  monarchy  in  the  seventh 
and  sixth  centuries  B.  C.  To  this  period  is  assigned 
a superb  head  of  dark  green  stone  (Fig.  14),  recently 
acquired  by  the  Berlin  Museum.  It  has  been  broken 
from  a standing  or  kneeling  statue.  The  form  of  the 
closely-shaven  skull  and  the  features  of  the  strong  face, 
wrinkled  by  age,  have  been  reproduced  by  the  sculptor 
with  unsurpassable  fidelity.  The  number  of  works 
emanating  from  the  same  school  as  this  is  very  small, 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


35 


but  in  quality  they  represent  the  highest  development 
of  Egyptian  sculpture.  It  is  fit  that  we  should  take 
our  leave  of  Egyptian  art  with  such  a work  as  this  be- 
fore us,  a work  which  gives  us  the  quintessence  of  the 

artistic  genius  of  the 


race. 


Babylonia  was  the 
seat  of  a civilization 
perhaps  more  hoary 
than  that  of  Egypt. 
The  known  remains 
of  Babylonian  art, 
however,  are  at  pres- 
ent far  fewer  than 
those  of  Egypt  and 
will  probably  always 
be  so.  There  being 
practically  no  stone 
in  the  country  and 
wood  being  very 
scarce,  buildings  were 
constructed  entirely 
of  bricks,  some  of 
them  merely  sun- 
dried,  others  kiln- 
baked.  The  natural 
wells  of  bitumen  sup- 

Fig.  14. — Portrait  Head.  Berlin.  ..  . 

plied  a tenacious  mor- 
tar.* The  ruins  that  have  been  explored  at  Tello,  Nip- 
pur, and  elsewhere,  belong  to  city  walls,  houses,  and 
temples.  The  most  peculiar  and  conspicuous  feature  of 


* Compare  Genesis  XI.  3 : “And  they  had  brick  for  stone,  and  slime  had 
they  for  mortar.” 


36 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


the  temple  was  a lofty  rectangular  tower  of  several 
stages,  each  stage  smaller  than  the  one  below  it.  The 
arch  was  known  and  used  in  Babylonia  from  time  im- 
memorial. As  for  the  ornamental  details  of  buildings, 
we  know  very  little  about  them,  except  that  large  use 
was  made  of  enameled  bricks. 

The  only  early  Babylonian  sculptures  of  any  conse- 
quence that  we 
possess  are  a col- 
lection of  broken 
reliefs  and  a dozen 
sculptures  in  the 
round,  found  in  a 
group  of  mounds 
called  Tello  and 
now  in  the  Louvre. 
The  reliefs  are  ex- 
tremely rude.  The 
statues  are  much 
better  and  are  there- 
fore probably  of 
later  date  ; they  are 
commonly  assigned 
by  students  of 
Babylonian  antiqui- 
ties to  about  3000 
B.  C.  Fig.  15  repro- 
duces one  of  them. 

Fig.  15.— Statue  of  Gudea.  Paris,  Louvre. 

the  material,  as  01 
the  other  statues  found  at  the  same  place,  is  a dark  and 
excessively  hard  igneous  rock  (dolerite).  The  person 
represented  is  one  Gudea,  the  ruler  of  a small  semi- 
independent principality.  On  his  lap  he  has  a tablet  on 
which  is  engraved  the  plan  of  a fortress,  very  interest- 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


37 


mg  to  the  student  of  military  antiquities.  The  forms 
of  the  body  are  surprisingly  well  given,  even  the  knuckles 
of  the  fingers  being  indicated.  As  regards  the  drapery, 
it  is  noteworthy  that  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  ren- 
der folds  on  the 
right  breast  and  the 
left  arm.  The  skirt 
of  the  dress  is 
covered  with  an 
inscription  in  cune- 
iform characters. 

Fig.  1 6 belongs 
to  the  same  group 
of  sculptures  as  the 
seated  figure  just 
discussed.  Al- 
though this  head 
gives  no  such  im- 
pression of  lifelike- 
ness as  the  best 
Egyptian  portraits, 
it  yet  shows  careful 
study.  Cheeks, 
chin,  and  mouth  are 
well  rendered.  The 
eyelids,  though  too 
wide  open,  are  still  good  ; notice  the  inner  corners. 
The  eyebrows  are  less  successful.  Their  general  form  is 
that  of  the  half  of  a figure  8 bisected  vertically,  and  the 
hairs  are  indicated  by  slanting  lines  arranged  in  herring- 
bone fashion.  Altogether,  the  reader  will  probably 
feel  more  respect  than  enthusiasm  for  this  early  Baby- 
lonian art,  and  will  have  no  keen  regret  that  the  speci- 
mens of  it  are  so  few. 


Fig.  i6.— Head,  from  Tello.  Paris,  Louvre. 


38 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


The  Assyrians  were  by  origin  one  people  with  the 
Chaldeans  and  were  therefore  a branch  of  the  great 
Semitic  family.  It  is  not  until  the  ninth  century  B.  C. 
that  the  great  period  of  Assyrian  history  begins.  Then 
for  two  and  a half  centuries  Assyria  was  the  great 
conquering  power  of  the  world.  Near  the  end  of  the 
seventh  century  it  was  completely  annihilated  by  a 
coalition  of  Babylonia  and  Media. 

With  an  insignificant  exception  or  two  the  remains  of 
Assyrian  buildings  and  sculptures  all  belong  to  the 
period  of  Assyrian  greatness.  The  principal  sites  where 
explorations  have  been  carried  on  are  Koyunjik  (Nine- 
veh), Nimroud,  and  Khorsabad,  and  the  ruins  uncovered 
are  chiefly  those  of  royal  palaces.  These  buildings  were 
of  enormous  extent.  The  palace  of  Sennacherib  at 
Nineveh,  for  example,  covered  more  than  twenty  acres. 
Although  the  country  possessed  building  stone  in  plenty, 
stone  was  not  used  except  for  superficial  ornamentation, 
baked  and  unbaked  bricks  being  the  architect’s  sole 
reliance.  This  was  a mere  blind  following  of  the  ex- 
ample of  Babylonia,  from  which  Assyria  derived  all  its 
culture.  The  palaces  were  probably  only  one  story  in 
height.  Their  principal  splendor  was  in  their  interior 
decoration  of  painted  stucco,  enameled  bricks,  and, 
above  all,  painted  reliefs  in  limestone  or  alabaster. 

The  great  Assyrian  bas-reliefs  covered  the  lower 
portions  of  the  walls  of  important  rooms.  Designed  to 
enrich  the  royal  palaces,  they  drew  their  principal 
themes  from  the  occupations  of  the  kings.  We  see  the 
monarch  offering  sacrifice  before  a divinity,  or,  more 
often,  engaged  in  his  favorite  pursuits  of  war  and  hunt- 
ing. These  extensive  compositions  cannot  be  ade- 
quately illustrated  by  two  or  three  small  pictures.  The 
most  that  can  be  done  is  to  show  the  sculptor’s  method 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia , 


39 


of  treating  single  figures.  Fig.  17  is  a slab  from  the 
earliest  series  we  possess,  that  belonging  to  the  palace  of 


Fig.  17. — Assyrian  Relief.  London,  British  Museum. 

(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “ Art  in  Chaldea  and  Assyria,”  Vol.  II.,  Fig.  113.) 

Asshur-nazir-pal  (884 — 860  B.  C. ) at  Nimroud.  It 
represents  the  king  facing  to  right,  with  a bowl  for 


40 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


libation  in  his  right  hand  and  his  bow  in  his  left,  while 
a eunuch  stands  fronting  him.  The  artistic  style 
exhibited  here  remains  with  no  essential  change  through- 
out the  whole  history  of  Assyrian  art.  The  figures  are 
in  profile,  except  that  the  king’s  further  shoulder  is 
thrown  forward  in  much  the  fashion  which  we  have 
found  the  rule  in  Egypt,  and  the  eyes  appear  as  in  front 
view.  Both  king  and  attendant  are  enveloped  in  long 
robes,  in  which  there  is  no  indication  of  folds,  though 
fringes  and  tassels  are  elaborately  rendered.  The  faces 
are  of  a strongly  marked  Semitic  cast,  but  without  any 

attempt  at  portrait- 
ure. The  hair  of 
the  head  ends  in 
several  rows  of 
snail-shell  curls,  and 
the  king’s  beard  has 
rows  of  these  curls 
alternating  with 
more  natural-look- 
ing portions.  Little 
is  displayed  of  the 
body  except  the 
fore-arms,  whose 
anatomy,  though 
intelligible,  is  coarse 
and  false.  As  for 
minor  matters,  such 
as  the  too  high  po- 
sition of  the  ears,  and  the  unnatural  shape  of  the  king’s 
right  hand,  it  is  needless  to  dwell  upon  them.  A cunei- 
form inscription  runs  right  across  the  relief,  interrupted 
only  by  the  fringes  of  the  robes. 

Fig.  1 8 shows  more  distinctly  the  characteristic 


Fig.  18.— Assyrian  Relief.  Paris,  Louvre. 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia . 


4i 


Assyrian  method  of  representing  the  human  head. 
Here  are  the  same  Semitic  features,  the  eye  in  front 
view,  and  the  strangely  curled  hair  and  beard.  The  only 
novelty  is  the  incised  line  which  marks  the  iris  of  the 


Fig.  19. — Winged  Bull.  Paris,  Louvre. 

(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “Art  in  Chaldea  and  Assyria,”  Vol.  II.,  PI.  IX.) 

eye.  This  peculiarity  is  first  observed  in  work  of 
Sargon’s  time  (722-705  B.  C. ). 

A constant  and  striking  feature  of  the  Assyrian 
palaces  was  afforded  by  the  great,  winged,  human- 
headed bulls,  which  flanked  the  principal  doorways. 
The  one  herewith  given  (Fig.  19)  is  from  Sargon’s 
palace  at  Khorsabad.  The  peculiar  methods  of  Assyrian 


42 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


sculpture  are  not  ill  suited  to  this  fantastic  creature,  an 
embodiment  of  force  and  intelligence.  One  special 
peculiarity  will  not  escape  the  attentive  observer.  Like 
all  his  kind,  except  in  Sennacherib’s  palace,  this  bull 
has  five  legs.  He  was  designed  to  be  looked  at  from 
directly  in  front  or  from  the  side,  not  from  an  inter- 
mediate point  of  view. 

Assyrian  art  was  not  wholly  without  capacity  for  im- 
provement. Under  Asshur-bani-pal  (668-626),  the  Sar- 
danapalus  of  the  Greeks,  it  reached  a distinctly  higher 
level  than  ever  before.  It  is  from  his  palace  at  Nineveh 
that  the  slab  partially  shown  in  Fig.  20  was  obtained. 
Two  demons,  with  human  bodies,  arms,  and  legs,  but 
with  lions’  heads,  asses’  ears,  and  eagles’  talons,  con- 
front one  another  angrily,  brandishing  daggers  in  their 
right  hands.  Mesopotamian  art  was  fond  of  such 
creatures,  but  we  do  not  know  precisely  what  meaning 
was  attached  to  the  present  scene.  We  need  therefore 
consider  only  stylistic  qualities.  As  the  two  demons  wear 
only  short  skirts  reaching  from  the  waist  to  the  knees, 
their  bodies  are  more  exposed  than  those  of  men  usually 
are.  We  note  the  inaccurate  anatomy  of  breast,  abdo- 
men, and  back,  in  dealing  with  which  the  sculptor  had 
little  experience  to  guide  him.  A marked  difference  is 
made  between  the  outer  and  the  inner  view  of  the  leg, 
the  former  being  treated  in  the  same  style  as  the  arms  in 
Fig.  17.  The  arms  are  here  better,  because  less  exag- 
gerated. The  junction  of  human  shoulders  and  animal 
necks  is  managed  with  no  sort  of  verisimilitude.  But 
the  heads,  conventionalized  though  they  are,  are  full  of 
vigor.  One  can  almost  hear  the  angry  snarl,  and  see 
the  lightning  flash  from  the  eyes. 

It  is,  in  fact,  in  the  rendering  of  animals  that  Assyrian 
art  attains  to  its  highest  level.  In  Asshur-bani-pal’ s 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia. 


43 


palace  extensive  hunting  scenes  give  occasion  for  intro- 
ducing horses,  dogs,  wild  asses,  lions,  and  lionesses,  and 
these  are  portrayed  with  a keen  eye  for  characteristic 
forms  and  movements.  One  of  the  most  famous  of  these 


animal  figures  is  the  lioness  shown  in  Fig.  21.  The 
creature  has  been  shot  through  with  three  great  arrows. 
Blood  gushes  from  her  wounds.  Her  hind  legs  are 
paralyzed  and  drag  helplessly  behind  her.  Yet  she  still 
moves  forward  on  her  fore-feet  and  howls  with  rage  and 


44 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


agony.  Praise  of  this  admirable  figure  can  hardly  be 
too  strong.  This  and  others  of  equal  merit  redeem 
Assyrian  art. 

As  has  been  already  intimated,  these  bas-reliefs  were 
always  colored,  though,  it  would  seem,  only  partially, 
whereas  Egyptian  bas-reliefs  were  completely  covered 
with  color. 

Of  Assyrian  stone  sculpture  in  the  round  nothing  has 
yet  been  said.  A few  pieces  exist,  but  their  style  is  so 


Fig.  21. — Wounded  Lioness.  London,  British  Museum. 


essentially  like  that  of  the  bas-reliefs  that  they  call  for 
no  separate  discussion.  More  interesting  is  the  Assyrian 
work  in  bronze.  The  most  important  specimens  of  this 
are  some  hammered  reliefs,  now  in  the  British  Museum, 
which  originally  adorned  a pair  of  wooden  doors  in  the 
palace  of  Shalmaneser  III.  at  Balawat.  The  art  of  cast- 
ing statuettes  and  statues  in  bronze  was  also  known  and 
practiced,  as  it  had  been  much  earlier  in  Babylonia,  but 
the  examples  preserved  to  us  are  few.  For  the  decora- 


Art  in  Egypt  and  Mesopotamia. 


45 


tive  use  which  the  Assyrians  made  of  color,  our  princi- 
pal witnesses  are  their  enameled  bricks.  These  are 
ornamented  with  various  designs — men,  genii,  animals, 
and  floral  patterns — in  a few  rich  colors,  chiefly  blue 
and  yellow.  Of  painting,  except  in  the  sense  of  mural 
decoration,  there  is  no  trace. 

Egypt  and  Mesopotamia  are,  of  all  the  countries 
around  the  Mediterranean,  the  only  seats  of  an  impor- 
tant, indigenous  art,  antedating  that  of  Greece.  Other 
countries  of  Western  Asia — Syria,  Phrygia,  Phenicia, 
Persia,  and  so  on — seem  to  have  been  rather  recipients 
and  transmitters  than  originators  of  artistic  influences. 
For  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  the  regions  just  named  did  not 
remain  isolated  from  one  another.  On  the  contrary,  in- 
tercourse both  friendly  and  hostile  was  active,  and 
artistic  products,  at  least  of  the  small  and  portable  kind, 
were  exchanged.  The  paths  of  communication  were 
many,  but  there  is  reason  for  thinking  that  the  Phe- 
nicians,  the  great  trading  nation  of  early  times,  were 
especially  instrumental  in  disseminating  artistic  ideas. 
To  these  influences  Greece  was  exposed  before  she  had 
any  great  art  of  her  own.  Among  the  remains  of  pre- 
historic Greece  we  find,  besides  some  objects  of  foreign 
manufacture,  others,  which,  though  presumably  of  na- 
- tive  origin,  are  yet  more  or  less  directly  inspired  by 
Egyptian  or  oriental  models.  But  when  the  true  history 
of  Greek  art  begins,  say  about  600  B.  C. , the  influences 
from  Egypt  and  Asia  sink  into  insignificance.  It  may 
be  that  the  impulse  to  represent  gods  and  men  in  wood 
or  stone  was  awakened  in  Greece  by  the  example  of 
older  communities.  It  may  be  that  one  or  two  types  of 
figures  were  suggested  by  foreign  models.  It  may  be 
that  a hint  was  taken  from  Egypt  for  the  form  of  the 


46 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


Doric  column  and  that  the  Ionic  capital  derives  from  an 
Assyrian  prototype.  It  is  almost  certain  that  the  art  of 
casting  hollow  bronze  statues  was  borrowed  from  Egypt. 
And  it  is  indisputable  that  some  ornamental  patterns  used 
in  architecture  and  on  pottery  were  rather  appropriated 
than  invented  by  Greece.  There  is  no  occasion  for  dis- 
guising or  underrating  this  indebtedness  of  Greece  to 
her  elder  neighbors.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  im- 
portant not  to  exaggerate  the  debt.  Greek  art  is 
essentially  self-originated,  the  product  of  a unique,  in- 
communicable genius.  As  well  might  one  say  that 
Greek  literature  is  of  Asiatic  origin,  because,  forsooth, 
the  Greek  alphabet  came  from  Phenicia,  as  call  Greek 
art  the  offspring  of  Egyptian  or  oriental  art  because  of 
the  impulses  received  in  the  days  of  its  beginning.* 


This  comparison  is  perhaps  not  original  with  the  present  writer. 


CHAPTER  II. 


PREHISTORIC  ART  IN  GREECE. 

Thirty  years  ago  it  would  have  been  impossible  to 
write  with  any  considerable  knowledge  of  prehistoric  art 
in  Greece.  The  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  to  be  sure,  tell  of 
numerous  artistic  objects,  but  no  definite  pictures  of 
these  were  called  up  by  the  poet’s  words.  Of  actual  re- 
mains only  a few  were  known.  Some  implements  of 
stone,  the  mighty  walls  of  Tiryns,  Mycenae,  and  many 
another  ancient  citadel,  four  “ treasuries,”  as  they  were 
often  called,  at  Mycenae  and  one  at  the  Boeotian  Orchome- 
nus — these  made  up  pretty  nearly  the  total  of  the  visible 
relics  of  that  early  time.  To-day  the  case  is  far  different. 
Thanks  to  the  faith,  the  liberality,  and  the  energy  of 
Heinrich  Schliemann,  an  immense  impetus  has  been 
given  to  the  study  of , prehistoric  Greek  archaeology. 
His  excavations  at  Troy,  Mycenae,  Tiryns,  and  else- 
where aroused  the  world.  He  labored,  and  other  men, 
better  trained  than  he,  have  entered  into  his  labors. 
The  material  for  study  is  constantly  accumulating,  and 
constant  progress  is  being  made  in  classifying  and  inter- 
preting  this  material.  A civilization  antedating  the 
Homeric  poems  stands  now  dimly  revealed  to  us.  My- 
cenae, the  city  “rich  in  gold,”  the  residence  of  Aga- 
memnon, whence  he  ruled  over  ‘ ‘ many  islands  and  all 
Argos,”*  is  seen  to  have  had  no  merely  legendary  pre- 
eminence. So  conspicuous,  in  fact,  does  Mycenae  ap- 
pear in  the  light  as  well  of  archaeology  as  of  epic,  that 


* Iliad  II.,  108. 


47 


48 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


it  has  become  common,  somewhat  misleading  though  it 
is,  to  call  a whole  epoch  and  a whole  civilization  “ My- 
cenaean.’’ This  “ Mycenaean”  civilization  was  widely 

extended  over  the  Greek  islands  and  the  eastern  por- 
tions of  continental  Greece  in  the  second  millennium  be- 
fore our  era.  Exact  dates  are  very  risky,  but  it  is 
reasonably  safe  to  say  that  this  civilization  was  in  full  de- 
velopment as  early  as  the  fifteenth  century  B.  C.,  and 
that  it  was  not  wholly  superseded  till  considerably  later 
than  1000  B.  C. 

It  is  our  present  business  to  gain  some  acquaintance 
with  this  epoch  on  its  artistic  side.  It  will  be  readily 
understood  that  our  knowledge  of  the  long  period  in 
question  is  still  very  fragmentary,  and  that,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  written  records,  our  interpretation  of  the  facts  is 
hardly  better  than  a groping  in  the  dark.  Fortunately 
we  can  afford,  so  far  as  the  purposes  of  this  book  are 
concerned,  to  be  content  with  a slight  review.  For  it 
seems  clear  that  the  “Mycenaean”  civilization  devel- 
oped little  which  can  be  called  artistic  in  the  highest 
sense  of  that  term.  The  real  history  of  Greek  art — that 
is  to  say,  of  Greek  architecture,  sculpture,  and  painting 
— begins  much  later.  Nevertheless  it  will  repay  us  to 
get  some  notion,  however  slight,  of  such  prehistoric 
Greek  remains  as  can  be  included  under  the  broadest 
acceptation  of  the  word  “ art.” 

In  such  a survey  it  is  usual  to  give  a place  to  early 
walls  of  fortification,  although  these,  to  be  sure,  were 
almqst^purely  utilitarian  in  their  character.  The  classic 
example  of  these  constructions  is  the  citadel  wall  of 
Tiryns  in  Argolis.  Fig.  22  shows  a portion  of  this  for- 
tification on  the  east  side,  with  the  principal  approach. 
Huge  blocks  of  roughly  dressed  limestone — some  of 
those  in  the  lower  courses  estimated  to  weigh  thirteen 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


49 


or  fourteen  tons  apiece — are  piled  one  upon  another,  the 
interstices  having  been  filled  with  clay  and  smaller 
stones.  This  wall  is  of  varying  thickness,  averaging 
at  the  bottom  about  twenty-five  feet.  At  two  places, 
viz.,  at  the  south  end  and  on  the  east  side  near  the 
southeast  corner,  the  thickness  is  increased,  in  order 
to  give  room  in  the  wall  for  a row  of  store  chambers 
with  communicating  gallery.  Fig.  23  shows  one  of 
these  galleries  in  its  present  condition.  It  will  be  seen 


Fig.  22. — Citadel  of  Tiryns. 


that  the  roof  has  been  formed  by  pushing  the  successive 
courses  of  stones  further  and  further  inward  from  both 
sides  until  they  meet.  The  result  is  in  form  a vault, 
but  the  principle  of  the  arch  is  not  there,  inasmuch  as 
the  stones  are  not  jointed  radially,  but  lie  on  approxi- 
mately horizontal  beds.  Such  a construction  is  some- 
limes  called  a ‘ ‘ corbelled  ’ ’ arch  or  vault. 

Similar  walls  to  those  of  Tiryns  are  found  in  many 
places,  though  nowhere  else  are  the  blocks  of  such 
gigantic  size.  The  Greeks  of  the  historical  period 
Viewed  these  imposing  structures  with  as  much  astonish- 


50 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Hence  the  adjective  Cyclopian  or  Cyclopean,  whose 
meaning  varies  unfortunately  in  modern  usage,  but 
which  is  best  restricted  to  walls  of  the  Tirynthian  type  ; 


ment  as  do  we,  and  attributed  them  (or  at  least  those  in 
Argolis)  to  the  Cyclopes,  a mythical  folk,  conceived  in 
this  connection  as  masons  of  superhuman  strength. 


Fig.  23. — Gallery  in  the  Eastern  Wall.  Tiryns. 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece. 


5i 


Fig.  24. — Portion  of  Citadel  Wall.  Mycenae. 

are  fitted  together  with  close  joints.  This  style  of 
masonry  is  called  polygonal  and  is  to  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  Cyclopean,  as  above  defined. 
Finally,  still  other  portions  of  this  same  Mycenaean  wall 
show  on  the  outside  a near  approach  to  what  is  called 
ashlar  masonry,  in  which  the  blocks  are  rectangular  and 
laid  in  even,  horizontal  courses.  This  is  the  case  near 
the  Lion  Gate,  the  principal  entrance  to  the  citadel 

(Fig-  25). 

Next  to  the  walls  of  fortification  the  most  numerous 


that  is  to  say,  walls  built  of  large  blocks  not  accurately 
fitted  together,  the  interstices  being  filled  with  small 
stones.  This  style  of  masonry  seems  to  be  always  of 
early  date. 

Portions  of  the  citadel  wall  of  Mycenae  are  Cyclopean. 
Other  portions,  quite  probably  of  later  date,  show  a 
very  different  character  (Fig.  24).  Here  the  blocks  on 
the  outer  surface  of  the  wall,  though  irregular  in  shape, 


a OF  LIB. 


52 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


early  remains  of  the  builder’s  art  in  Greece  are  the 
“ bee-hive  ’ ’ tombs,  of  which  many  examples  have  been 
discovered  in  Argolis,  Laconia,  Attica,  Bceotia,  Thes- 
saly, and  Crete.  At  Mycenae  alone  there  are  eight  now 
known,  all  of  them  outside  the  citadel.  The  largest  and 
most  imposing  of  these,  and  indeed  of  the  entire  class,  is 
the  one  commonly  referred  to  by  the  misleading  name 
of  the  “Treasury  of  Atreus.”  Fig.  26  gives  a section 
through  this  tomb.  A straight  passage,  A B,  flanked 
by  walls  of  ashlar  masonry  and  open  to  the  sky,  leads  to 


Fig.  25. — The  Lion  Gate.  Mycenae. 

a doorway,  B.  This  doorway,  once  closed  with  heavy 
doors,  was  framed  with  an  elaborate  architectural  com- 
position, of  which  only  small  fragments  now  exist  and 
these  widely  dispersed — in  London,  Berlin,  Carlsruhe, 
Munich,  Athens,  and  Mycense  itself.  In  the  decoration 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece. 


53 


of  this  fagade  rosettes  and  running  spirals  played  a con- 
spicuous part,  and  on  either  side  of  the  doorway  stood 
a column  which  tapered  downwards  and  was  ornamented 
with  spirals  arranged  in  zigzag  bands.  This  downward- 
tapering^jgJujpin,  so  unlike  the  columns  of  classic  times, 
seems  to  have  been  in  common  use  in  Mycenaean  archi- 


tecture.,. Inside  the  doors  comes  a short  passage,  B C, 
roofed  by  two  huge  lintel  blocks,  the  inner  one  of 
which  is  estimated  to  weigh  132  tons.  The  principal 
chamber,  D,  which  is  embedded  in  the  hill,  is  circular  in 
plan,  with  a lower  diameter  of  about  forty-seven  feet. 

^ Its  wall  is  formed  of  horizontal  courses  of  stone,  each 
pushed  further  inward  than  the  one  below  it,  until  the 
opening  was  small  enough  to  be  covered  by  a single 
stone.  The  method  of  roofing  is  therefore  identical  in 
principle  with  that  used  in  the  galleries  and  store 
chambers  of  Tiryns  ; but  here  the  blocks  have  been 
much  more  carefully  worked  and  accurately  fitted,  and 
the  exposed  ends  have  been  so  beveled  as  to  give  to  the 
whole  interior  a smooth,  curved  surface.  Numerous 
horizontal  rows  of  small  holes  exist,  only  partly  indi- 
cated in  our  illustration,  beginning  in  the  fourth  course 
from  the  bottom  and  continuing  at  intervals  probably  to 
the  top.  In  some  of  these  holes  bronze  nails  still 
remain.  These  must  have  served  for  the  attachment 


54 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


of  some  sort  of  bronze  decoration.  The  most  careful 
study  of  the  disposition  of  the  holes  has  led  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  fourth  and  fifth  courses  were  completely 
covered  with  bronze  plates,  presumably  ornamented, 

of  single  ornaments, 
possibly  rosettes. 
Fig.  27  will  give 
some  idea  of  the 
present  appearance 
of  this  chamber, 
which  is  still  com- 
plete, except  for  the 
loss  of  the  bronze 
decoration  and  two 
or  three  stones  at 
the  top.  The  small 
doorway  which  is 
seen  here,  as  well  as 
in  Fig.  26,  leads 
into  a rectangular 
chamber,  hewn  in 
the  living  rock. 
This  is  much  smaller 
than  the  main  cham- 
ber. 

At  Orchomenus 
in  Bceotia  are  the  ruins  of  a tomb  scarcely  inferior  in 
size  to  the  “Treasury  of  Atreus”  and  once  scarcely 
less  magnificent.  Here  too,  besides  the  “ bee-hive  ” 
construction,  there  was  a lateral,  rectangular  cham- 
ber— a feature  which  occurs  only  in  these  two 
cases.  Excavations  conducted  here  by  Schliemann  in 
1880-81  brought  to  light  the  broken  fragments  of  a 
j ceiling  of  greenish  schist  with  which  this  lateral  cham- 


and  that  above  this  there  were  rows 


Fig.  27. — Interior  of  “ Treasury  of  Atreus.” 
(From  a photograph  by  the  German  Archaeo- 
logical Institute.) 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


55 


ber  was.  once  covered.  Fig.  28  shows  this  ceiling 
restored.  The  beautiful  sculptured  decoration  con- 


Fig.  28. — Ceiling  of  Tomb-Chamber  at  Orchomenus,  Restored. 
(From  The  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies , Vol.  II.,  PI.  XII.) 

sists  of  elements  which  recur  in  almost  the  'Same  com- 
bination on  a fragment  of  painted  stucco  from  the 


56 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


palace  of  Tiryns.  The  pattern  is  derived  from  Egypt. 

The  two  structures  just  described  were  long  ago 
broken  into  and  despoiled.  If  they  stood  alone,  we 
could  only  guess  at  their  original  purpose.  But  some 
other  examples  of  the  same  class  have  been  left  un- 
molested or  less  completely  ransacked,  until  in  recent 
years  they  could  be  studied  by  scientific  investigators. 
Furthermore  we  have  the  evidence  of  numerous  rock- 
cut  chambers  of  analogous  shape,  many  of  which  have 
been  recently  opened  in  a virgin  condition.  Thus  it  has 
been  put  beyond  a doubt  that  these  subterranean  “ bee- 
hive’ ’ chambers  were  sepulchral  monuments,  the  bodies 
having  been  laid  in  graves  within.  The  largest  and 
best  built  of  these  tombs,  if  not  all,  must  have  belonged 
to  princely  families. 

Even  the  dwelling-houses  of  the  chieftains  who  ruled 
at  Tiryns  ancTTWycenae  are  known  to  us  by  their  remains. 
The  palace  of  Tiryns  occupied  the  entire  southern  end 
of  the  citadel,  within  the  massive  walls  above  described. 
Its  ruins  were  uncovered  in  1884-85.  The  plan  and 
the  lower  portions  of  the  walls  of  an  extensive  com- 
plex of  gateways,  open  courts,  and  closed  rooms  were 
thus  revealed.  There  are  remains  of  a similar  building 
at  Mycenae,  but  less  well  preserved,  while  the  citadels  of 
Athens  and  Troy  present  still  more  scanty  traces  of  an 
analogous  kind.  The  walls  of  the  Tirynthian  palace 
were  not  built  of  gigantic  blocks  of  stone,  such  as  were 
used  in  the  citadel  wall.  That  would  have  been  a reck- 
less waste  of  labor.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  built 
partly  of  small  irregular  pieces  of  stone,  partly  of  sun- 
dried  bricks.  Clay  was  used  to  hold  these  materials 
together,  and  beams  of  wood  (“bond  timbers”)  were 
laid  lengthwise  here  and  there  in  the  wall  to  give 
additional  strength.  Where  columns  were  needed,  they 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece. 


57 


were  in  every  case  of  wood,  and  consequently  have  long 
since  decomposed  and  disappeared.  Considerable  re- 
mains, however,  were  found  of  the  decorations  of  the 
interior.  Thus  there  are  bits  of  what  must  once  have 
been  a beautiful  frieze  of  alabaster,  inlaid  with  pieces  of 
blue  glass.  A restored  piece  of  this,  sufficient  to  give 
the  pattern,  is  seen  in  Fig.  29.  Essentially  the  same 
design,  somewhat  simplified,  occurs  on  objects  of  stone, 
ivory,  and  glass  found  at  Mycenae  and  in  a “bee-hive  5 ’ 
tomb  of  Attica.  Again,  there  are  fragments  of  painted 
stucco  which  decorated  the  walls  of  rooms  in  the  palace 


Fig.  29.— Alabaster  Frieze  from  Tiryns,  Restored. 
(From  Sybel,  “ Weltgeschichte  der  Kunst,”  page  62.) 


of  Tiryns.  The  largest  and  most  interesting  of  these 
fragments  is  shown  in  Fig.  30.  A yellow  and  red  bull 
is  represented  against  a blue  background,  galloping 
furiously  to  left,  tail  in  air.  Above  him  is  a man  of 
slender  build,  nearly  naked.  With  his  right  hand  the 
man  grasps  one  of  the  bull’s  horns  ; his  right  leg  is  bent 
at  the  knee  and  the  foot  seems  to  touch  with  its  toes  the 
bull’s  back  ; his  outstretched  left  leg  is  raised  high  in  air. 
We  have  several  similar  representations  on  objects  of 
the  Mycenaean  period,  the  most  interesting  of  which  will 
be  presently  described  (see  page  67).  The  comparison 


58 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


of  these  with  one  another  leaves  little  room  for  doubt 
that  the  Tirynthian  fresco  was  intended  to  portray  the 
chase  of  a wild  bull.  But  what  does  the  man’s  position 
signify?  Has  he  been  tossed  into  the  air  by  the 
infuriated  animal  ? Has  he  adventurously  vaulted  upon 


Fig.  30.— Wall-Fresco  from  Tiryns. 

(From  Schliemann,  “ Tiryns,”  PI.  XIII.) 

the  creature’s  back?  Or  did  the  painter  mean  him  to 
be  running  on  the  ground,  and,  finding  the  problem  of 
drawing  the  two  figures  in  their  proper  relation  too 
much  for  his  simple  skill,  did  he  adopt  the  child-like 
expedient  of  putting  one  above  the  other?  This  last 
seems  much  the  most  probable  explanation,  especially  as 
the  same  expedient  is  to  be  seen  in  several  other  designs 
belonging  to  this  period. 

At  Mycenae  also,  both  in  the  principal  palace  which 
corresponds  to  that  of  Tiryns  and  in  a smaller  house, 
remains  of  wall-frescoes  have  been  found.  These,  like 
those  of  Tiryns,  consisted  partly  of  merely  ornamental 
patterns,  partly  of  genuine  pictures,  with  human  and 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


59 


animal  figures.  But  nothingjias  there  come  to  light  at 
once  so  well  preserved  and  so  spirited  as  the  bull-fresco 
from  Tiryns. 

Painting  in  the  Mycenaean  period  seems  to  have  been 
nearly,  if  not  entirely,  confined  to  the  decoration  of 
house-walls  and  of  pottery.  Similarly  sculpture  had  no 
existence  as  a great,  independent  art.  There  is  no 

trace  of  any 
statue  in  the 
round  of  life- 
size  or  anything 
approaching 
t hat.  This 
agrees  with  the 
impression  we 
get  from  the  Ho- 
rn eric  poems, 
where,  with 
possibly  one  ex- 
ception,* there 
is  no  allusion  to 
any  sculptured 
image.  There 
are,  to  be  sure, 
primitive  statu- 
ettes, one  class 
of  which,  very 
rude  and  early, 
in  fact  pre- 

Fig.  31. — Primitive  Statuettes  from  the  Greek  My  cense  an  in 
Islands.  London,  British  Museum.  character  is  il- 

lustrated by  Fig.  31.  Images  of  this  sort  have  been 
found  principally  on  the  islands  of  the  Greek  Archipel- 


* Iliad  VI.,  273,  303. 


6o 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


ago.  They  are  made  of  marble  or  limestone,  and  rep- 
resent a naked  female  figure  standing  stiffly  erect,  with 
arms  crossed  in  front  below  the  breasts.  The  head  is 
of  extraordinary  rudeness,  the  face  of  a horse-shoe 
shape,  often  with  no  feature  except  a long  triangular 
nose.  What  religious  ideas  were  associated  with  these 
barbarous  little  images  by  their  possessors  we  can  hardly 

guess.  We 
shall  see  that 
when  a truly 
Greek  art 
came  into  be- 
ing, figures  of 
goddesses  and 
women  were 
decor  o u s 1 y 
clothed. 

Excavations 
on  Mycenaean 
sites  have 
yielded  quan- 
tities of  small 
figures,  chiefly 
of  painted 
terra-cotta  (cf 
Fig.  43),  but 
also  of  bronze 
or  lead.  Of 

sculpture  on  a larger  scale  we  possess  nothing  except  the 
gravestones  found  at  Mycenae  and  the  relief  which  has 
given  a name,  albeit  an  inaccurate  one,  to  the  Lion  Gate. 
The  gravestones  are  probably  the  earlier.  They  were 
found  within  a circular  enclosure  just  inside  the  Lion 
Gate,  above  a group  of  six  graves — the  so-called  pit- 


Fig.  32.— Gravestone  from  Mycenae. 
Athens,  National  Museum. 


Prehistoy'ic  Art  in  Greece . 


61 


graves  or  shaft-graves  of  Mycenae.  The  best  preserved 
of  these  gravestones  is  shown  in  Fig.  32.  The  field, 
bordered  by  a double  fillet,  is  divided  horizontally  into 
two  parts.  The  upper  part  is  filled  with  an  ingeniously 
contrived  system  of  running  spirals.  Below  is  a battle- 
scene  : a man  in  a chariot  is  driving  at  full  speed,  and 
in  front  there  is  a naked  foot  soldier  (enemy?),  with  a 
sword  in  his  uplifted  left  hand.  Spirals,  apparently 
meaningless,  fill  in  the  vacant  spaces.  The  technique 
is  very  simple.  The  figures  having  been  outlined,  the 
background  has  been  cut  away  to  a shallow  depth  ; 
within  the  outlines  there  is  no  modeling,  the  surfaces 
being  left  flat.  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  short- 
comings of  this  work,  but  it  is  worth  while  to  remind 
the  reader  that  the  gravestone  commemorates  one  who 
must  have  been  an  important  personage,  probably  a 
chieftain,  and  that  the  best  available  talent  would  have 
been  secured  for  the  purpose. 

The  famous  relief  above  the  Lion  Gate  of  Mycenae 
(Figs.  25,  33),  though  probably  of  somewhat  later  date 
than  the  sculptured  gravestones,  is  still  generally  be-  j 
lieved  to  go  well  back  into  the  second  millennium  be{ore 
Christ.  It  represents  two  lionesses  (not  lions)  facing 
one  another  in  heraldic  fashion,  their  fore-paws  resting 
on  what  is  probably  to  be  called  an  altar  or  pair  of 
altars  ; between  them  is  a column,  which  tapers  down- 
ward (cf.  the  columns  of  the  “ Treasury  of  Atreus,”  page 
53),  surmounted  by  what  seems  to  be  a suggestion  of 
an  entablature.  The  heads  of  the  lionesses,  originally 
made  of  separate  pieces  and  attached,  have  been  lost. 
Otherwise  the  work  is  in  good  preservation,  in  spite  of 
its  uninterrupted  exposure  for  more  than  three  thousand 
years.  The  technique  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the 
gravestones,  for  all  parts  of  the  relief  are  carefully 


62 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


modeled.  The  truth  to  nature  is  also  far  greater  here, 
the  animals  being  tolerably  life-like.  The  design  is  one 
which  recurs  with  variations  on  two  or  three  engraved 


Fig.  33.— Relief  above  the  Lion  Gate,  Mycenae. 

(From  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  “ Histoire  de  l’Art  dans  PAntiquite,” 
Vol.  VI.,  PI.  XIV.) 


gems  of  the  Mycenaean  period  (ef  Fig.  40),  as  well  as 
in  a series  of  later  Phrygian  reliefs  in  stone.  Placed  in 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


63 


this  conspicuous  position  above  the  principal  entrance  to 
the  citadel,  it  may  perhaps  have  symbolized  the  power 
of  the  city  and  its  rulers. 

If  sculpture  in  stone  appears  to  have  been  very  little 
practiced  in  the  Mycenaean  age,  the  arts  of  the  gold- 
smith, silversmith,  gem-engraver,  and  ivory-carver  were 
in  great  requisition.  The  shaft-graves  of  Mycenae  con- 
tained, besides  other  things,  a rich  treasure  of  gold  ob- 
jects— masks,  drinking-cups,  diadems,  ear-rings,  finger- 
rings,  and  so  on  ; also  several  silver  vases.  One  of  the 


Fig.  34.— Gold  Ornament. 

(From  Schliemann,  “ Mycenae,” 

Fig.  240.) 

latter  may  be  seen  in  Fig.  43.  It  is  a large  jar,  about 
two  and  one  half  feet  in  height,  decorated  below  with 
horizontal  flutings  and  above  with  continuous  spirals 
in  repoussZ  (i.e. , hammered)  work.  Most  of  the  gold 
objects  must  be  passed  over,  interesting  though  many 
of  them  are.  But  we  may  pause  a moment  over  a 
group  of  circular  ornaments  in  thin  gold-leaf  about 
two  and  one  half  inches  in  diameter,  of  which  701  speci- 
mens were  found,  all  in  a single  grave.  The  patterns 
on  these  discs  were  not  executed  with  a free  hand,  but 


Fig.  35. — Gold  Ornament. 
(From  Schliemann,  “ Mycenae,” 
Fig.  246.) 


64 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


by  means  of  a mold.  There  are  fourteen  patterns  in  all, 
some  of  them  made  up  of  spirals  and  serpentine  curves, 
others  derived  from  vegetable  and  animal  forms.  Two 
of  the  latter  class  are  shown  in  Figs.  34,  35.  One  is  a 
butterfly,  the  other  a cuttle-fish,  both  of  them  skilfully 
conventionalized.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the 
antennae  of  the  butterfly  and  still  more  the  arms  of  the 
cuttle-fish  are  made  to  end  in  the  favorite  spiral. 

The  sculptures 
and  gold  objects 
which  have  been 
thus  far  described 
or  referred  to  were 
in  all  probability 
executed  by  na- 
tive, or  at  any  rate 
by  resident,  work- 
men, though  some 
of  the  patterns 
clearly  betray  ori- 
ental influence. 
Other  objects  must 
have  been,  others 
may  have  been, 
actually  imported 
from  Egypt  or  the 
East.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  draw  the 
line  with  certainty 
between  native  and 
imported.  Thus 
the  admirable  sil- 
ver head  of  a cow  from  one  of  the  shaft-graves  (Fig.  36) 
has  been  claimed  as  an  Egyptian  or  a Phenician  produc- 


Fig.  36.— Silver  Cow’s  Head.  Athens,  National 
Museum.  (From  a photograph  by  the  Ger- 
man Archaeological  Institute.) 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece. 


65 


tion,  but  the  evidence  adduced  is  not  decisive.  Sim- 
ilarly with  the  fragment  of  a silver  vase  shown  in  Fig. 
37.  This  has  a design  in  relief  ( repoussZ ) representing 
the  siege  of  a walled  town  or  citadel.  On  the  walls  is  a 
group  of  women 
making  frantic 
gestures.  The 
defenders,  most 
of  them  naked, 
are  armed  with 
bows  and  ar- 
rows and  slings. 

On  the  ground 
lie  sling-stones 
and  throwing- 
sticks,*  which 
may  be  sup- 
posed to  have 
been  hurled  by 
the  enemy.  In 
the  background 
there  are  four 
nondescript  trees,  perhaps  intended  for  olive  trees. 

Another  variety  of  Mycenaean  metal-work  is  of  a 
much  higher  order  of  merit  than  the  dramatic  but  rude 
relief  on  this  silver  vase.  I refer  to  a number  of  inlaid 
dagger-blades,  which  were  found  in  two  of  the  shaft- 
graves.  Fig.  38  reproduces  one  side  of  the  finest  of 
these.  It  is  about  nine  inches  long.  The  blade  is  of 
bronze,  while  the  rivets  by  which  the  handle  was 
attached  are  of  gold.  The  design  was  inlaid  in  a 
separate  thin  slip  of  bronze,  which  was  then  inserted 


Fig.  37. — Fragment  of  Silver  Vase.  Athens, 
National  Museum.  (From  the  Ephemeris 
Archaiologike , 1891,  PI.  II.) 


* So  explained  by  Mr.  A.  J.  Evans  in  The  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies , XIII., 
page  199. 


66 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


into  a sinking  on  the  blade.  The  materials  used  are 
various.  The  lions  and  the  naked  parts  of  the  men  are 
of  gold,  the  shields  and  trunks  of  the  men  of  electrum 

(a  mixture  of  gold  and 
silver),  the  hair  of  the 
men,  the  manes  of  the 
lions,  and  some  other 
details  of  an  unidenti- 
fied dark  substance  ; 
the  background,  to  the 
edges  of  the  inserted 
slip,  was  covered  with 
a black  enamel.  The 
scene  is  a lion-hunt. 
Four  men,  one  armed 
only  with  a bow,  the 
others  with  lances  and 
huge  shields  of  two 
different  forms,  are  at- 
tacking a lion.  A fifth 
hunter  has  fallen  and 
lies  under  the  lion’s 
fore-paws.  The  beast 
has  already  been  run 
through  with  a lance, 
the  point  of  which  is 
seen  protruding  from 
his  haunch  ; but  he 
still  shows  fight,  while 
his  two  companions 
dash  away  at  full 
speed.  The  design  is 
skilfully  composed  to 
fill  the  triangular 


3 l-H 

<V  . 

Svo 
_ 00 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


67 


space,  and  the  attitudes  of  men  and  beasts  are  varied, 
expressive,  and  fairly  truthful.  Another  of  these 
dagger-blades  has  a representation  of  panthers  hunting 
ducks  by  the  banks  of  a river  in  which  what  may  be 
lotus  plants  are  growing.  The  lotus  would  point  toward 
Egypt  as  the  ultimate  source  of  the  design.  Moreover, 
a dagger  of  similar  technique  has  been  found  in  Egypt 
in  the  tomb  of  a queen  belonging  to  the  end  of  the 
Seventeenth  Dynasty.  On  the  other  hand,  the  dress 
and  the  shields  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  lion-hunt 
are  identical  with  those  on  a number  of  other  ‘ ‘ My- 
cenaean ’ ’ articles— gems,  statuettes,  etc. — which  it  is 
difficult  to  regard  as  all  of  foreign  importation.  The 
probability,  then,  seems  to  be  that  while  the  technique 
of  the  dagger-blades  was  directly  or  indirectly  derived 
from  Egypt,  the  specimens  found  at  Mycenae  were  of 
local  manufacture. 

The  greatest  triumph  of  the  goldsmith’s  art  in  the 
“ Mycenaean”  period  does  not  come  from  Mycenae. 
The  two  gold  cups  shown  in  Fig.  39  were  found  in  1888 
in  a bee-hive  tomb  at  Vaphio  in  Laconia.  Each  cup  is 
double  ; that  is  to  say,  there  is  an  outer  cup,  which  has 
been  hammered  into  shape  from  a single  disc  of  gold 
and  which  is  therefore  without  a joint,  and  an  inner  cup, 
similarly  made,  whose  upper  edge  is  bent  over  the  outer 
cup  so  as  to  hold  the  two  together.  The  horizontal 
parts  of  the  handles  are  attached  by  rivets,  while  the 
intervening  vertical  cylinders  are  soldered.  The  designs 
in  repousse  work  are  evidently  pendants  to  one  another. 
The  first  represents  a hunt  of  wild  bulls.  One  bull, 
whose  appearance  indicates  the  highest  pitch  of  fury,  has 
dashed  a would-be  captor  to  earth  and  is  now  tossing 
another  on  his  horns.  A second  bull,  entangled  in  a 
stout  net,  writhes  and  bellows  in  the  vain  effort  to 


Fig.  39. — Two  Gold  Cups.  Athens,  National  Museum. 

(From  Overbeck,  “ Geschichte  der  griechischen  Plastik,”  Vol.  I.,  Fig.  4.) 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


69 


escape.  A third  gallops  at  full  speed  from  the  scene  of 
his  comrade’s  captivity.  The  other  design  shows  us 
four  tame  bulls.  The  first  submits  with  evident  im- 
patience to  his  master.  The  next  two  stand  quietly, 
with  an  almost  comical  effect  of  good  nature  and  con- 
tentment. The  fourth  advances  slowly,  browsing.  In 
each  composition  the  ground  is  indicated,  not  only 
beneath  the  men  and  animals,  but  above  them,  wher- 
ever the  design  affords  room.  It  is  an  example  of  the 
same  naive  perspective  which  seems  to  have  been 
employed  in  the  Tirynthiarf  bull-fresco  (Fig.  30).  The 
men,  too,  are  of  the  same  build  here  as  there,  and  the 
bulls  have  similarly  curving  horns.  There  are  several 
trees  on  the  cups,  two  of  which  are  clearly  characterized 
as  palms,  while  the  others  resemble  those  in  Fig.  37, 
and  may  be  intended  for  olives.  The  bulls  are  rendered 
with  amazing  spirit  and  understanding.  True,  there  are 
palpable  defects,  if  one  examines  closely.  For  example, 
the  position  of  the  bull  in  the  net  is  quite  impossible. 
But  in  general  the  attitudes  and  expressions  are  as  life- 
like as  they  are  varied.  Evidently  we  have  here  the 
work  of  an  artist  who  drew  his  inspiration  directly  from 
nature. 

Engraved  gems  were  in  great  demand  in  the  My- 
cenaean period,  being  worn  as  ornamental  beads,  and 
the  work  of  the  gem-engraver,  like  that  of  the  gold- 
smith, exhibits  excellent  qualities.  The  usual  material 
was  some  variety  of  ornamental  stone — agate,  jasper, 
rock-crystal,  etc.  There  are  two  principal  shapes,  the 
one  lenticular,  the  other  elongated  or  glandular  (Figs. 
40,  41).  The  designs  are  engraved  in  intaglio,  but, 
our  illustrations  being  made,  as  is  usual,  from  plaster 
impressions,  they  appear  as  cameos.  Among  the  sub- 
jects the  lion  plays  an  important  part,  sometimes 


70 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


represented  singly,  sometimes  in  pairs,  sometimes  de- 
vouring a bull  or  stag.  Cattle,  goats,  deer,  and  fantastic 
creatures  (sphinxes,  griffins,  etc.)  are  also  common. 
So  are  human  figures,  often  engaged  in  war  or  the 
chase.  In  the  best  of  these  gems  the  work  is  executed 
with  great  care,  and  the  designs,  though  often  inaccu- 
rate, are  nevertheless  vigorous.  Very  commonly,  how- 
ever, the  distortion  of  the  figure  is  carried  beyond  all 
bounds.  Fig.  40  was  selected  for  illustration,  not  be- 
cause it  is  a particularly 
favorable  specimen  of  its 
class,  but  because  it  offers 
an  interesting  analogy  to  the 
relief  above  the  Lion  Gate. 
It  represents  two  lions  ram- 
Figs.  40, 41. -Engraved  Gems  from  pant,  their  fore-paws  resting 
^TcHaioi^ Z.fiT.r  on  an  altar  (?),  their  heads, 

oddly  enough,  combined 
into  one.  The  column  which  figures  in  the  relief  above 
the  gate  is  absent  from  the  gem,  but  is  found  on 
another  specimen  from  Mycenae,  where  the  animals, 
however,  are  winged  griffins.  Fig.  41  has  only  a stand- 
ing man,  of  the  wasp-waisted  figure  and  wearing  the 
girdle  with  which  other  representations  have  now  made 
us  familiar. 

It  remains  to  glance  at  the  most  important  early 
varieties  of  Greek  pottery.  We  need  not  stop  here  to 
study  the  rude,  unpainted,  mostly  hand-made  vases 
from  the  earliest  strata  at  Troy  and  Tiryns,  nor  the 
more  developed,  yet  still  primitive,  ware  of  the  island  of 
Thera.  But  the  Mycenaean  pottery  is  of  too  great  im- 
portance to  be  passed  over.  This  was  the  characteristic 
ware  of  the  Mycenaean  civilization.  The  probability  is 
that  it  was  manufactured  at  several  different  places, 


Fig.  42.  — Vases  of  Mycenaean  Style. 
(From  Baumeister,  “ Denkmaler,”  page  1939.) 


72 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


of  which  Mycenae  may  have  been  one  and  perhaps  the 
most  important.  It  was  an  article  of  export  and  thus 
found  its  way  even  into  Egypt,  where  specimens  have 
been  discovered  in  tombs  of  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty  and 
later.  The  variations  in  form  and  ornamentation  are  con- 
siderable, as  is  natural  with  an  article  whose  production 
was  carried  on  at  different  centers  and  during  a period  of 
centuries.  Fig.  42  shows  a few  of  the  characteristic 
shapes  and  decorations  ; some  additional  pieces  may  be 
seen  in  Fig.  43.  The  Mycenaean  vases  are  mostly  wheel- 


Fig.  43.— Vases  (Silver,  Terra-cotta,  and  Alabaster)  and  Statuettes 

from  Mycenae. 

(From  a photograph  by  the  German  Archaeological  Institute.) 


made.  The  decoration,  in  the  great  majority  of  examples, 
is  applied  in  a lustrous  color,  generally  red,  shading  to 
brown  or  black.  The  favorite  elements  of  design  are 
bands  and  spirals  and  a variety  of  animal  and  vegetable 
forms,  chiefly  marine.  Thus  the  vase  at  the  bottom  of 
Fig.  42,  on  the  left,  has  a conventionalized  nautilus ; the 
one  at  the  top,  on  the  right,  shows  a pair  of  lily-like 
plants  ; and  the  jug  in  the  middle  of  Fig.  43  is  covered 
with  the  stalks  and  leaves  of  what  is  perhaps  meant  for 
seaweed.  Quadrupeds  and  men  belong  to  the  latest 
period  of  the  style,  the  vase-painters  of  the  early  and 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


73 


central  Mycenaean  periods  having  abstained,  for  some 
reason  or  other,  from  those  subjects  which  formed  the 
stock  in  trade  of  the  gem-engravers. 

The  Mycenaean  pottery  was  gradually  superseded  by 
pottery  of  an  essentially  different  style,  called  Geometric, 
from  the  character  of  its  painted  decorations.  It  is 


Fig.  44.— Dipylon  Vase,  with  Details. 

(From  Brunn,  “ Griechische  Kunstgeschichte,”  Fig.  54.) 


impossible  to  say  when  this  style  made  its  first  appear- 
ance in  Greece,  but  it  seems  to  have  flourished  for 
i some  hundreds  of  years  and  to  have  lasted  till  as  late  as 
the  end  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  It  falls  into  several 
local  varieties,  of  which  the  most  important  is  the 
Athenian.  This  is  commonly  called  Dipylon  pottery, 
from  the  fact  that  the  cemetery  near  the  Dipylon,  the 
chief  gate  of  ancient  Athens,  has  supplied  the  greatest 
number  of  specimens.  Some  of  these  Dipylon  vases 
are  of  great  size  and  served  as  funeral  monuments. 
Fig.  44  gives  a good  example  of  this  class.  It  is  four 


74 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


feet  high.  Both  the  shape  and  the  decoration  are  very 
different  from  those  of  the  Mycenaean  style.  The 
surface  is  almost  completely  covered  by  a system  of 
ornament  in  which  zigzags,  meanders,  and  groups  of 
concentric  circles  play  an  important  part.  In  this 
system  of  Geometric  patterns  zones  or  friezes  are  re- 
served for  designs  into  which  human  and  animal  figures 
enter.  The  center  of  interest  is  in  the  middle  of  the 
upper  frieze,  between  the  handles.  Here  we  see  a 
corpse  upon  a funeral  bier,  drawn  by  a two-horse 
wagon.  To  right  and  left  are  mourners  arranged  in 
two  rows,  one  above  the  other.  The  lower  frieze, 
which  encircles  the  vase  about  at  its  middle,  consists  of 
a line  of  two-horse  chariots  and  their  drivers.  The 
drawing  of  these  designs  is  illustrated  on  a larger  scale 
on  the  right  and  left  of  the  vase  in  Fig.  44  ; it  is  more 
childish  than  anything  we  have  seen  from  the  My- 
cenaean period.  The  horses  have  thin  bodies,  legs, 
and  necks,  and  their  heads  look  as  much  like  fishes  as 
anything.  The  men  and  women  are  just  as  bad.  Their 
heads  show  no  feature  save,  at  most,  a dot  for  the  eye 
and  a projection  for  the  nose,  with  now  and  then  a sort 
of  tassel  for  the  hair  ; their  bodies  are  triangular,  except 
those  of  the  charioteers,  whose  shape  is  perhaps  derived 
from  one  form  of  Greek  shield  ; their  thin  arms,  of 
varying  lengths,  are  entirely  destitute  of  natural  shape  ; 
their  long  legs,  though  thigh  and  calf  are  distin- 
guished, are  only  a shade  more  like  reality  than  the 
arms.  Such  incapacity  on  the  part  of  the  designer 
would  be  hard  to  explain,  were  he  to  be  regarded  as  the 
direct  heir  of  the  Mycenaean  culture.  But  the  sources 
of  the  Geometric  style  are  probably  to  be  sought  among 

I other  tribes  than  those  which  were  dominant  in  the  days 
of  Mycenae’s  splendor.  Greek  tradition  tells  of  a great 


Prehistoric  Art  in  Greece . 


75 


movement  of  population,  the  so-called  Dorian  migra- 
tion, which  took  place  some  centuries  before  the  begin- 
ning of  recorded  history  in  Greece.  If  that  invasion 
and  conquest  of  Peloponnesus  by  ruder  tribes  from  the 
North  be  a fact,  then  the  hypothesis  is  a plausible  one 
which  would  connect  the  gradual  disappearance  of 


Fig.  45.— Plate  from  Rhodes.  British  Museum. 
(From  Salzmann,  “ Necropole  de  Camiros,”  PI.  LIII.) 


Mycenaean  art  with  that  great  change.  Geometric  art, 
according  to  this  theory,  would  have  originated  with  the 
tribes  which  now  came  to  the  fore. 

Besides  the  Geometric  pottery  and  its  offshoots,  sev- 
eral other  local  varieties  were  produced  in  Greece  in 


76 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


the  eighth  and  seventh  centuries.  These  are  some- 
times grouped  together  under  the  name  of  “oriental- 
izing” styles,  because,  in  a greater  or  less  degree,  they 
show  in  their  ornamentation  the  influence  of  oriental 
models,  of  which  the  pure  Geometric  style  betrays  no 
trace.  It  is  impossible  here  to  describe  all  these  local 
wares,  but  a single  plate  from  Rhodes  (Fig.  45)  may 
serve  to  illustrate  the  degree  of  proficiency  in  the  draw- 
ing of  the  human  figure  which  had  been  attained  about 
the  end  of  the  seventh  century.  Additional  interest  is 
lent  to  this  design  by  the  names  attached  to  the  three 
men.  The  combatants  are  Menelaus  and  Hector  ; the 
fallen  warrior  is  Euphorbus.  Here  for  the  first  time  we 
find  depicted  a scene  from  the  Trojan  War.  From  this 
time  on  the  epic  legends  form  a large  part  of  the  reper- 
tory of  the  vase-painters. 


CHAPTER  III. 


GREEK  ARCHITECTURE. 


The  supreme  achievement  of  Greek  architecture  was 
the  temple.  In  imperial  Rome,  or  in  any  typical  city  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  the  most  extensive  and  imposing 
buildings  were  secular — basilicas,  baths,  amphitheaters, 
porticoes,  aqueducts.  In  Athens,  on  the  other  hand, 
or  in  any  typical  Greek  city,  there  was  little  or  nothing 
to  vie  with  the  temples  and  the  sacred  edifices  associated 
with  them.  Public  secular  buildings,  of  course,  there 
were,  but  the  little  we  know  of  them  does  not  suggest 
that  they  often  ranked  among  the  architectural  glories 
of  the  country.  Private  houses  were  in  the  best  period 
of  small  pretensions.  It  was  to  the  temple  and  its  ad- 
junct buildings  that  the  architectural  .genius  and  the 
material  resources  of  Greece  were  devoted.  It  is  the 
temple,  then,  which  we  have  above  all  to  study. 

Before  beginning,  however,  to  analyse  the  artistic 
features  of  the  temple,  it  will  be  useful  to  consider  the 
building  materials  which  a Greek  architect  had  at  his 
disposal  and  his  methods  of  putting  them  together. 
Greece  is  richly  provided  with  good  building  stone.  At 
many  points  there  are  inexhaustible  stores  of  white 
marble.  The  island  of  Paros,  one  of  the  Cyclades,  and 
Mount  Pentelicus  in  Attica — to  name  only  the  two  best 
and  most  famous  quarries — are  simply  masses  of  white 
marble,  suitable  as  well  for  the  builder  as  the  sculptor. 
There  are  besides  various  beautiful  colored  marbles,  but 
it  was  left  to  the  Romans  to  bring  these  into  use.  Then 


(Ak. 


y , . w * 


77 


/ j b'lJ 


■-L  ■ 


78 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


there  are  many  commoner  sorts  of  stone  ready  to  the 
builder’s  hand,  especially  the  rather  soft,  brown  lime- 
stones which  the  Greeks  called  by  the  general  name  of 
poros  A This  material  was  not  disdained,  even  for  im- 
portant buildings.  Thus  the  Temple  of  Zeus  at  Olympia, 

' one  of  the  two  most  important  religious  centers  in  the 
Greek  world,  was  built  of  local  poros.  The  same  was 
the  case  with  the  numerous  temples  of  Acragas  (Gir- 
genti)  and  Selinus  in  Sicily.  An  even  meaner  ma- 
terial, sun-dried  brick,  was  sometimes,  perhaps  often, 
employed  for  cella  walls.  Where  poros  or  crude  brick 
was  used,  it  was  coated  over  with  a very  fine,  hard 
stucco,  which  gave  a surface  like  that  of  marble. 

It  is  remarkable  that  no  use  was  made  in  Greece  of 
baked  bricks  before  the  period  of  Roman  domination. 
Roof-tiles  of  terra-cotta  were  in  use  from  an  early  period, 
and  Greek  travelers  to  Babylonia  brought  back  word  of 
the  use  of  baked  bricks  in  that  country.  Nevertheless 
Greek  builders  showed  no  disposition  to  adopt  baked 
bricks  for  their  masonry. 

This  probably  hangs  together  with  another  important 
fact,  the  absence  of  lime-mortar  from  Greek  architecture. 
Lime-stucco  was  in  use  from  time  immemorial.  But 
lime-mortar,  i.  e. , lime  ipixed  with  sand  and  used  as  a 
bond  for  masonry,  is  all  but  unknown  in  Greek  work.f 
Consequently  in  the  walls  of  temples  and  other  carefully 
constructed  buildings  an  elaborate  system  of  bonding  by 
means  of  clamps  and  dowels  was  resorted  to.  Fig.  46 
illustrates  this  and  some  other  points.  The  blocks  of 
marble  are  seen  to  be  perfectly  rectangular  and  of  uni- 
form length  and  height.  Each  end  of  every  block  is 


* The  word  has  no  connection  with  porous. 

f The  solitary  exception  at  present  known  is  an  Attic  tomb  built  of  crude 
bricks  laid  in  lime-mortar. 


Greek  Architecture . 


79 


worked  with  a slightly  raised  and  well-smoothed  border, 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  without  unnecessary  labor  a 
perfectly  accurate  joint.  The  shallow  holes,  III,  III,  in 
the  upper  surfaces  are  pry-holes,  which  were  of  use  in 
prying  the  blocks  into  position.  The  adjustment  having 
been  made,  contiguous  blocks  in  the  same  course  were 
bonded  to  one 
another  by 
clamps,  I,  I,  em- 
bedded horizon- 
tally, while  the 
sliding  of  one 
course  upon 
another  was 
prevented  by  up- 
right dowels,  II, 

II.  Greek  clamps  Fig.  46.— Greek  Method  of  Building  a Wall. 

•••■  ~~-**'*>  (From  the  Athenische  Mittheilungen , 1881,  PI.  XII.) 

and  dowels  were 

usually  of  iron  and  they  were  fixed  in  their  sockets  by 
means  of  molten  lead  run  in.  The  form  of  the  clamp 
differs  at  different  periods.  The  double-X-shape~sh-Own 
in  the  illustration  is  characteristic  of  the  best  age  ( c f. 
also  Fig.  48). 

Another  important  fact  to  be  noted  at  the  outset  is 
the  absence  of  the  arch  from  Greek  architecture.  It  is 
reported  by  the  Roman  philosopher,  Seneca,  that  the 
principle  of  the  arch  was  “discovered”  by  the  Greek 
philosopher,  Democritus,  who  lived  in  the  latter  half  of 
the  fifth  century  B.  C.  That  he  independently  dis- 
covered the  arch  as  a practical  possibility  is  most  un- 
likely, seeing  that  it  had  been  used  for  ages  in  Egypt 
and  Mesopotamia  ; but  it  may  be  that  he  discussed, 
however  imperfectly,  the  mathematical  theory  of  the 
subject.  If  so,  it  would  seem  likely  that  he  had  prac- 


8o 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


tical  illustrations  about  him  ; and  this  view  receives 
some  support  from  the  existence  of  a few  subterranean 
vaults  which  perhaps  go  back  to  the  good  Greek  period. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  the  arch  plays  absolutely  no  part  in 
the  columnar  architecture  of  Greece.  In  a Greek  tem- 
ple or  similar  building  only  the  flat  ceiling  was  known. 
Above  the  exterior  portico  and  the  vestibules  of  a tem- 
ple the  ceiling  was  sometimes  of  stone  or  marble,  some- 
times of  wood  ; in  the  interior  it  was  always  of  wood. 
It  follows  that  no  very  wide  space  could  be  ceiled  over 
without  extra  supports.  At  Priene  in  Asia  Minor  we 
find  a temple  (Fig.  49)  whose  cella,  slightly  over  thirty 
____  feet  in  breadth,  has  no  in- 
terior columns.  The  arch- 
itect of  the  Temple  of 
Athena  on  the  island  of 
yEgina  (Fig.  52)  was  less 
venturesome.  Although 
the  cella  there  is  only  21 
feet  in  breadth,  we  find,  as 
in  large  temples,  a double 
row  of  columns  to  help 
support  the  ceiling.  And 
when  a really  large  room 
was  built,  like  the  Hall  of 
Initiation  at  Eleusis  or  the 
Assembly  Hall  of  the  Ar- 
cadians at  Megalopolis, 
such  a forest  of  pillars  was 
required  as  must  have  seri- 
ously interfered  with  the  convenience  of  congregations. 

We  are  now  ready  to  study  the  plan  of  a Greek  tem- 
ple. The  essential  feature  is  an  enclosed  chamber, 
commonly  called  by  the  Latin  name  cella,  in  which 


Fig.  47. — Plan  of  Small  Temple. 
Rhamnus.  A,  cella;  ¥>,pronaos. 
(From  the  “Unedited  Antiquities  of  At- 
tica,” Chap.  VII.,  PI.  1.) 


Greek  Architecture. 


Si 


stood,  as  a rule,  the  image  of  the  god  or  goddess  to 
whom  the  temple  was  dedicated.  Fig.  47  shows  a very 
simple  plan.  Here  the  side  walls  of  the  cella  are  pro- 
longed in  front  and  terminate  in  antes  (see  below,  page 
88).  Between  the  antse  are  two  columns.  This  type 
of  temple  is 
called  a tem- 
plum  in  antis. 

Were  the  ves- 
tibule ( pro - 
naos')  repeated 
at  the  other 
end  of  the 
building,  it 
would  be 
called  an  opis- 
thodomos , and 
the  whole 
b u i 1 d i n g 
would  be  a 
double  tem- 
plum  in  antis. 

In  Fig.  48  the 
vestibules  are 
formed  by 
rows  of  col- 
umns extend- 
ing across  the 

whole  width  of  the  cella,  whose  side  walls  are  not  pro-  j 
longed.  Did  a vestibule  exist  at  the  front  only,  the 
temple  would  be  called  prostyle ; as  it  is,  it  is  amphi- 
prostyle.  Only  small  Greek  temples  have  as  simple  a 
plan  as  those  just  described.  Larger  temples  are  per-, 
ipteral , i.  e. , are  surrounded  by  a colonnade  or  peristyle 


Fig.  48.— Plan  of  Temple  of  Wingless  Victory. 
Athens.  A,  cella;  B, pronaos ; C,  opisthodomos . 
(From  Ross,  “ Tempel  der  Nike  Apteros,  PI.  I.) 


82 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


(Figs.  49,  50).  In  Fig.  49  the  cella  with  its  vestibules 
has  the  form  of  a double  templum  in  antis ; in  Fig.  50 
it  is  amphiprostyle.  A further  difference  should  be 
noted.  In  Fig.  49,  which  is  the  plan  of  an  Ionic  tem- 
ple, the  antse  and  columns  of  the  vestibules  are  in  line 
with  columns  of  the  outer  row,  at  both  the  ends  and  the 
sides  ; in  Fig.  50,  which  is  the  plan  of  a Doric  temple, 
the  exterior  columns  are  set  without  regard  to  the  cella 
walh  and  the  columns  of  the  vestibules.  This  is  a reg- 
ular difference  between  Doric  and  Ionic  temples,  though 
the  rule  is  subject  to  a few  exceptions  in  the  case  of  the 
former. 

The  plan  of  almost  any  Greek  temple  will  be  found  to 


(From  kayet  and  Thomas,  “ Milet  et  le  Golfe  Latmique,”  PI.  IX.) 


be  referable  to  one  or  other  of  the  types  just  described, 
although  there  are  great  differences  in  the  proportions 
of  the  several  parts.  It  remains  only  to  add  that  in 
almost  every  case  the  principal  front  was  toward  the 
east  or  nearly  so.  When  Greek  temples  were  converted 
into  Christian  churches,  as  often  happened,  it  was  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  conform  to  the  Christian  ritual,  to 


/ 


: / v __  - . 

Greek  Architecture . 


7 o y 9-c 

83 


reverse  this  arrangement  and  to  place  the  principal 
entrance  at  the  western  end. 

The  next  thing  is  to  study  the  prin£ij)al  elements  of  a 
Greek  temple 
as  seen  in  ele- 
vation. This 
brings  us  to  the 
subject  of  the 
G reek  “ or- 
ders/ ’ There 
are  two  princi- 
pal orders  in 
Greek  architec- 
ture, the  Doric 
and  the  Ionic. 

Figs.  51  and  61 
show  a charac- 
teristic  speci- 
men of  each. 

The  term  ‘ 4 or- 
der,” it  should  s 
be  said,  is  com- 
monly restricted 
in  architectural 
parlance  to  the 
column  and  en- 
tablature. Our 
illustrations, 
however,  show 
all  the  features 
of  a Doric  and 

an  Ionic  facade.  tbs=====^^ 

There  are  several  points  of  agreemdn¥*fe»etween  the  tv 
in  each  the^columns  rest  on  a stepped  base,  called  tl 


Crepidoma.  Column.  Entablature. 


84 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


crepidoma,  the  upper- 
most step  of  which  is  the 
stylobate ; in  each  the 
shaft  of  the  column 
tapers  from  the  lower  to 
the  upper  end,  is  chan- 
neled or  fluted  verti- 
cally, and  is  surmounted 
by  a projecting  member 
called  a capital ; in  each 
the  entablature  consists 
of  three  members — 
architrave,  frieze,  and 
cornice.  There  the 
important  points  of 
agreement  end.  The 
differences  will  best  be 
fixed  in  mind  by  a de- 
t ailed  examination  of 
each  order  separately. 

Our  typical  example 
of  the  Doric  order  (Fig. 
51)  is  taken  from  the 
Temple  of  Aphaia  on 
the  island  of  ^Egina — 
a temple  probably 
erected  about  480  B.  C. 
ff  Fig.  52* ) The  col- 
umn consists  of  two 
parts,  shaft  and  capital. 
It  is  of  sturdy  pro- 
portions, its  height  being 
about  five  and  one  half 
times  the  lower  diameter 


Greek  Architecture . 


85 


of  the  shaft.  If  the  shaft  tapered  upward  at  a uniform 
rate,  it  would  have  the  form  of  a truncated  cone. 
Instead  of  that,  the  shaft  has  an  entasis  or  swelling. 
Imagine  a vertical  section  to  be  made  through  the  mid- 
dle of  the  column.  If,  then,  the  diminution  of  the  shaft 
were  uniform,  the  sides  of  this  section  would  be  straight 
lines.  In  reality,  however,  they  are  slightly  curved 
lines,  convex  outward.  This  addition  to  the  form  of  a 
truncated  cone  is  the  entasis.  It  is  greatest  at  about 
one  third  or  one  half  the  height  of  the  shaft,  and  there 
amounts,  in  cases  that  have  been  measured,  to  from  tu 
to  tIo  of  the  lower  diameter  of  the  shaft.*  In  some  early 
Doric  temples,  as  the  one  at  Assos  in  Asia  Minor,  there 
is  no  entasis.  The  channels  or  flutes  in  our  typical 
column  are  twenty  in  number.  More  rarely  we  find 
sixteen  ; much  more  rarely  larger  multiples  of  four. 
These  channels  are  so  placed  that  one  comes  directly 
under  the  middle  of  each  face  of  the  capital.  They  are 
comparatively  shallow,  and  are  separated  from  one 
another  by  sharp  edges  or  arrises.  The  capital,  though 
worked  out  of  one  block,  may  be  regarded  as  consisting 
of  two  parts  — a cushion-shaped  member  called  an  echi- 
nus, encircled  below  by  three  to  five  annulets , (cf  Figs. 
59,  60)  and  a square  slab  called  an  abacus)  the  latter  so 
placed  that  its  sides  are  parallel  to  the  sides  of  the  build- 
ing. The  architrave  is  a succession  of  horizontal  beams 
resting  upon  the  columns.  The  face  of  this  member  is 
plain,  except  that  along  the  upper  edge  there  runs  a 
slightly  projecting  flat  band  called  a tcenia , with  regulse 
and  guttae  at  equal  intervals  ; these  last  are  best  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  frieze.  The  frieze  is  made 

* Observe  that  the  entasis  is  so  slight  that  the  lowest  diameter  of  the  shaft  is 
always  the  greatest  diameter.  The  illustration  is  unfortunately  not  quite  cor- 
rect, since  it  gives  the  shaft  a uniform  diameter  for  about  one  third  of  its 
height. 


86  A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Fig.  52. — West  Front  of  the  Temple  of  Aphaia,  Restored. 
JEg ina.  (From  Cockerell,  “ Temples  at  y£gina  and  Bassae,”  Pi.  IV.) 

each  intercolumniation.  But  at  the  corners  of  the  build- 
ings the  intercolumniations  are  diminished,  with  the 
result  that  the  corner  triglyphs  do  not  stand  over  the 
centers  of  the  corner  columns,  but  farther  out  ( cf.  Fig. 
52).  Under  each  triglyph  there  is  worked  upon  the  face 
of  the  architrave,  directly  below  the  taenia,  a regula, 
shaped  like  a small  cleat,  and  to  the  under  surface  of  this 
regula  is  attached  a row  of  six  cylindrical  or  conical 


up  of  alternating  triglyphs  and  metopes.  A triglyph  is  a 
block  whose  height  is  nearly  twice  its  width  ; upon  its 
face  are  two  furrows  triangular  in  plan,  and  its  outer 
edges  are  chamfered  off.  Thus  we  may  say  that  the  tri- 
glyph has  two  furrows  and  two  half-furrows  ; these  do 
not  extend  to  the  top  of  the  block.  A triglyph  is  placed 
over  the  center  of  each  column  and  over  the  center  of 


Greek  Architecture . 


87 


guttce.  Between  every  two  triglyphs,  and  standing  a 
little  farther  back,  there  is  a square  or  nearly  square  slab 
or  block  called  a metope.  This  has  a flat  band  across  the 
top  ; for  the  rest,  its  face  may  be  either  plain  or  sculp- 
tured in  relief.  The  uppermost  member  of  the  entabla- 
ture, the  cornice , consists  principally  of  a projecting 
portion,  the  corona , on  whose  inclined  under  surface  or 
soffit  are  rectangular  projections,  the  so-called  mutules 
(best  seen  in  the  frontispiece),  one  over  each  triglyph 
and  each  metope.  Three  rows  of  six  guttae  each  are 
attached  to  the  under  surface  of  a mutule.  Above  the 
cornice,  at  the  east  and  west  ends  of  the  building,  come 
the  triangular  pediments  or  gables,  formed  by  the  sloping 
roof  and  adapted  for  groups  of  sculpture.  The  pedi- 
ment is  protected 
above  by  a “rak- 
ing” cornice, 
which  has  not  the 
same  form  as  the 
horizontal  cornice, 
the  principal  dif- 
ference being  that 
the  under  surface 
of  the  raking  cor- 
nice is  concave  and 
without  mutules. 

Above  the  raking 
cornice  comes  a 
sima  or  gutter- 
facing, which  in  buildings  of  good  period  has  a curvi- 
linear profile.  This  sima  is  sometimes  continued  along 
the  long  sides  of  the  building,  and  sometimes  not. 
When  it  is  so  continued,  water-spouts  are  inserted  into  it 
at  intervals,  usually  in  the  form  of  lions’  heads.  Fig.  53 


Fig.  53.— Fragment  of  Sima,  with  Lion’s  Head. 
Athens,  Acropolis  Museum.  (From  a photograph 
by  the  German  Archaeological  Institute.) 


88 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


shows  a fine  lion’s  head  of  this  sort  from  a sixth  century 
temple  on  the  Athenian  Acropolis.  If  it  be  added  that 
upon  the  apex  and  the  lower  corners  of  the  pediment 
there  were  commonly  pedestals  which  supported  statues 
or  other  ornamental  objects  (Fig.  52),  mention  will 
have  been  made  of  all  the  main  features  of  the  exterior 
of  a Doric  peripteral  temple. 

Every  other  part  of  the  building  had  likewise  its 

established  form, 


1 


but  it  will  not  be 
possible  here  to  de- 
scribe or  even  to 
mention  every  de- 
tail. The  most  im- 
portant member  not 
yet  treated  of  is  the 
anta.  An  anta  may 
be  described  as  a 
pilaster  forming  the 
termination  of  a 
wall.  It  stands 
directly  opposite  a 
column  and  is  of 
the  same  height  with  it,  its  function  being  to  receive 
one  end  of  an  architrave  block,  the  other  end  of  which 
is  borne  by  the  column.  The  breadth  of  its  front  face 
is  slightly  greater  than  the  thickness  of  the  wall  ; the 
breadth  of  a side  face  depends  upon  whether  or  not  the 
anta  supports  an  architrave  on  that  side  (Figs.  47,  48, 
49,  5°)-  The  Doric  anta  has  a special  capital,  quite 
unlike  the  capital  of  the  column.  Fig.  54  shows  an  ex- 
ample from  a building  erected  in  437-32  B.  C.  Its  most 
striking  feature  is  the  Doric  cyma , or  hawk' s-beak  mold ' 
ing , the  characteristic  molding  of  the  Doric  style  (Fig. 


Fig,  54. — Half  of  Anta-Capital  of  the 
Athenian  Propyl^ea,  with  Color 
Restored. 

(From  Fenger,  “Dorische  Polychromie,”  PI.  VII.) 


Greek  Architecture. 


89 


55),  used  also  to  crown  the  horizontal  cornice  and  in 
other  situations  (Fig.  51  and  frontispiece).  Below  the 
capital  the  anta  is  treated  precisely  like  the  wall  of 
which  it  forms  a part  ; that  is  to  say,  its  surfaces  are 
plain,  except  for  the  simple  base-molding,  which  ex- 
tends also  along  the  foot  of  the  wall.  The  method  of 
ceiling  the  peristyle  and  vestibules  by  means  of  ceiling- 
beams  on  which  rest  slabs  decorated  with  square, 
recessed  panels  or  coffers  may  be  indistinctly  seen  in 
Fig.  56.  Within  the  cella,  when  columns  were  used 
to  help  support  the  wooden  ceiling,  there  seem  to  have 
been  regularly  two 
ranges,  one  above 
the  other.  This  is 
the  only  case,  so 
far  as  we  know,  in 

FiG.55.— Hawk’s-beak  Molding,  Colored. 

which  Greek  archi- 
tecture of  the  best  period  put  one  range  of  columns 
above  another.  There  were  probably  no  windows  of 
any  kind,  so  that  the  cella  received  no  daylight,  except 
such  as  entered  by  the  great  front  doorway,  when 
the  doors  were  open.*  The  roof-beams  were  of  wood. 
The  roof  was  covered  with  terra-cotta  or  marble  tiles. 

Such  are  the  main  features  of  a Doric  temple  (those 
last  mentioned  not  being  peculiar  to  the  Doric  style). 
Little  has  been  said  thus  far  of  variation  in  these 
features.  Yet  variation  there  was.  Not  to  dwell  on 
local  differences,  as  between  Greece  proper  and  the 
Greek  colonies  in  Sicily,  there  was  a development  con- 
stantly going  on,  changing  the  forms  of  details  and  the 
relative  proportions  of  parts  and  even  introducing  new 

* This  whole  matter,  however,  is  in  dispute.  Some  authorities  believe  that 
large  temples  were  hypczthral , i.  e.,  open,  or  partly  open,  to  the  sky,  or  in  some 
way  lighted  from  above.  In  Fig.  56  an  open  grating  has  been  inserted  above 
the  doors,  but  for  such  an  arrangement  in  a Greek  temple  there  is  no  evidence, 
so  far  as  I am  aware. 


90 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


features  originally  foreign  to  the  style.  Thus  the 
column  grows  slendergjc  from  century  to  century.  In 
early  examples  it  is  from  four  to  five  lower  diameters  in 


Fig.  56. — East  Front  of  the  Parthenon,  Restored  and  Dissected. 
(From  the  Wiener  Vorlegeblatter.) 


height  ; in  the  best  period  (fifth  and  fourth  centuries) 
about  five  and  one  half  ; in  the  post-classical  period,  six 
to  seven.  The  difference  in  this  respect  between  early 


92 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


and  late  examples  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  sixth 
century  Temple  of  Posidon  (?)  at  Paestum  in  southern 
Italy  (Fig.  57)  with  the  third  (?)  century  Temple  of 
Zeus  at  Nemea  (Fig.  58).  Again,  the  echinus  of  the 
capital  is  in  the  early  period  widely  flaring,  making  in 
some  very  early  examples  an  angle  at  the  start  of  not 


Fig.  58.— Columns  of  the  Temple  of  Zeus.  Nemea. 


more  than  fifteen  or  twenty  degrees  with  the  horizontal 
(Fig.  59)  ; in  the  best  period  it  rises  more  steeply, 
starting  at  an  angle  of  about  fifty  degrees  with  the 
horizontal  and  having  a profile  which  closely  approaches 
a straight  line,  until  it  curves  inward  under  the  abacus 
(Fig.  51)  ; in  the  post-classical  period  it  is  low  and 
sometimes  quite  conical  (Fig.  60).  In  general,  the 


Greek  Architecture . 


93 


degeneracy  of  post-classical  Greek  architecture  is  in 
nothing  more  marked  than  in  the  loss  of  those  subtle 
curves  which  characterize  the  best  Greek  work.  Other 
differences  must  be  learned  from  more  extended  treatises. 

The  Ionic  order  was  of  a much  more  luxuriant  char- 
acter than  the  Doric.  Our  typical  example  (Fig.  61) 
is  taken  from  the  Temple  of  Priene  in  Asia  Minor — a 
temple  erected  about  340-30  B.  C.  The  column  has  a 
base  consisting  of  a plain  square  plinth , two  trochili  with 
moldings,  and  a torus  fluted  horizontally.  The  Ionic 


Fig.  59. — Early  Doric  Capital  Fig.  6o. — Late  Doric  Capital 

from  Selinus.  from  Samothrace. 


shaft  is  much  slenderer  than  the  Doric,  the  height  of  the 
column  (including  base  and  capital)  being  in  different 
examples  from  eight  to  ten  times  the  lower  diameter  of 
the  shaft.  The  diminution  of  the  shaft  is  naturally  less 
than  in  the  Doric,  and  the  eyitasis,  where  any  has  been 
detected,  is  exceedingly  slight.  The  flutes,  twenty-four 
in  number,  are  deeper  than  in  the  Doric  shaft,  being  in 
fact  nearly  or  quite  semicircular,  and  they  are  separated 
from  one  another  by  flat  bands  or  fillets.  For  the  form 
of  the  capital  it  will  be  better  to  refer  to  Fig.  62,  taken 
from  an  Attic  building  of  the  latter  half  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. The  principal  parts  are  an  ovolo  and  a spiral  roll 


Crepidoma.  Column.  Entablature. 


94 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


Fig.  6i.— Corner  of  an  Ionic  Facade. 


(the  latter  name  not  in 
general  use).  The 
ovolo  has  a convex  pro- 
file, and  is  sometimes 
called  a quarter-round  ; 
it  is  enriched  with  an 
egg- and- dart  ornament. 
The  spiral  roll  may  be 
conceived  as  a long 
cushion,  whose  ends  are 
rolled  under  to  form  the 
volutes . The  part  con- 
necting the  volutes  is 
slightly  hollowed,  and 
the  channel  thus  formed 
is  continued  into  the 
volutes.  As  seen  from 
the  side  (Fig.  63),  the 
end  of  the  spiral  roll  is 
called  a bolster ; it  has 
the  appearance  of  being 
drawn  together  by  a 
number  of  encircling 
bands.  On  the  front, 
the  angles  formed  by  the 
spiral  roll  are  filled  by 
a conventionalized  floral 
ornament  (the  so-called 
palmette') . Above  the 
spiral  roll  is  a low 
abacus,  oblong  or  square 
in  plan.  In  Fig.  62  the 
profile  of  the  abacus  is 
an  ovolo  on  which  the 


Greek  Architecture. 


95 


egg-and-dart  ornament  was  painted  ( c f.  Fig.  66,  where 
the  ornament  is  sculptured).  In  Fig.  61,  as  in  Fig.  71, 
the  profile  is  a 
complex  curve 
called  a cyma  re- 
versa , convex 
above  and  con- 
cave below,  en- 
riched with  a 
sculptured  leaf- 
and-dart  orna- 
ment.* Finally, 

attention  maybe  Fig.  62.—  Capital  from  Temple  of  Wingless  Vic- 
J TORY.  Front  view.  ( From  Adamy,  “Archi- 

called  to  the  as-  tektonik  der  Hellenen,  Fig.  97.) 

tragal  or  pearl-beading  just  under  the  ovolo  in  Figs. 

61,  71.  This  might  be  de- 
scribed as  a string  of  beads 
and  buttons,  two  buttons 
alternating  with  a single 
bead. 

In  the  normal  Ionic  cap- 
ital the  opposite  faces  are  of 
identical  appearance.  If  this 
were  the  case  with  the  cap- 
ital at  the  corner  of  a build- 
ing, the  result  would  be  that 
on  the  side  of  the  building 
all  the  capitals  would  pre- 
sent their  bolsters  instead  of 
their  volutes  to  the  specta- 
tor. The  only  way  to  prevent  this  was  to  distort  the 


Fig.  63.— Capital  from  Temple  of 
Wingless  Victory.  Side  view. 
(From  Adamy,  “Architektonik  der 
Hellenen,”  Fig.  97.) 


* The  egg-and-dart  is  found  only  on  the  ovolo;  the  leaf-and-dart  only  on  the 
cyma  reversa  or  the  cyma  recta  (concave  above  and  convex  below).  Both 
ornaments  are  in  origin  leaf-patterns,  one  row  of  leaves  showing  their  points 
behind  another  row. 


96 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


corner  capital  into  the  form  shown  by  Fig.  64  ; cf.  also 
Figs.  61  and  70. 

The  Ionic  architrave  is  divided  horizontally  into 
three  (or  sometimes  two)  bands,  each  of  the  upper 
ones  projecting  slightly  over  the  one  below  it.  It  is 
crowned  by  a sort  of  cornice  enriched  with  moldings. 
The  frieze  is  not  divided  like  the  Doric  frieze,  but  pre- 
sents an  uninterrupted  surfaces  It  may  be  either  plain 
or  covered  with  relief-sculpture.  It  is  finished  off  with 
moldings  along  the  upper  edge.  The  cornice  (cf.  Fig. 
65)  consists  of  two  principal  parts.  First  comes  a pro- 
jecting block,  into  whose  face  rectangular  cuttings  have 
been  made  at  short  intervals,  thus 
leaving  a succession  of  cogs  or 
dentels  ; above  these  are  moldings. 
Secondly  there  is  a much  more 
widely  projecting  block,  the  co- 
rona, whose  under  surface  is  hol- 
lowed to  lighten  the  weight  and 
whose  face  is  capped  with  mold- 
ings. The  raking  cornice  is  like 
the  horizontal  cornice  except  that 
it  has  no  dentels.  The  sima  or  gutter-facing,  whose 
profile  is  here  a cyma  recta  (concave  above  and  convex 
below),  is  enriched  with  sculptured  floral  ornament. 

In  the  Ionic  buildings  of  Attica  the  base  of  the 
column  consists  of  two  tori  separated  by  a trochilus. 
The  proportions  of  these  parts  vary  considerably.  The 
base  in  Fig.  66  (from  a building  finished  about  408 
B.  C. ) is  worthy  of  attentive  examination  by  reason  of  its 
harmonious  proportions.  In  the  Roman  form  of  this 
base,  too  often  imitated  nowadays,  the  trochilus  has 
too  small  a diameter.  The  Attic-Ionic  cornice  never 
has  dentels,  unless  the  cornice  of  the  Caryatid  portico 


Fig.  64.— Ionic  Corner 
Capital,  as  Seen 
from  Below. 


Greek  Architecture . 


97 


of  the  Erechtheum  ought  to  be  reckoned  as  an  instance 
(Fig.  67). 


Fig.  65.— Entablature  and  Upper  Part  of  Column  from  the 
Mausoleum.  British  Museum. 

The  capital  shown  in  Fig.  66  is  a special  variety  of 
the  Ionic  capital,  of  rather  rare  occurrence.  Its  dis- 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Attic- 

Ionic 

Base 


tinguishing  features  are  : the  insertion  between  ovolo 

1 and  spiral  roll  of  a 


: 


torus  ornamented 
with  a braided 
pattern,  called  a 
guilloche ; the  ab- 
sence of  the  pal- 
mettes  from  the 
corners  formed  by 
the  spiral  roll;  and 
the  fact  that  the 
channel  of  the  roll 
is  double  instead 
of  single,  which 
gives  a more  elab- 
orate character  to 
that  member. 
Finally,  in  the 
Erechtheum  the 
upper  part  or 
necking  of  the 
shaft  is  enriched 
with  an  exquisitely 
wrought  band  of 
floral  ornament, 
the  s o - c a 1 he  d 
honeysuckle  pat- 
tern. This  fea- 
ture is  met  with 
in  some  other  ex- 
amples. 

As  in  the  Doric 
style,  so  in  the  Ionic,  the  anta-capital  is  quite  unlike 
the  column-capital.  Fig.  68  shows  an  anta-capital 


Fig.  66-Order  of  the  Erechtheum,  East  Portico. 
(From  Stuart  and  Revett,  “Antiquities  of  Athens.”) 


Greek  Architecture . 


99 


from  the  Erechtheum,  with  an  adjacent  portion  of  the 
wall-band  ; cf.  also  Fig.  69.  Perhaps  it  is  inaccurate 
in  this  case  to  speak  of  an  anta-capital  at  all,  seeing 


Fig.  67. — The  Erechtheum,  from  the  East,  Restored. 
(From  Stuart  and  Revett,  “Antiquities  of  Athens,”  Vol.  II.) 


that  the  anta  simply  shares  the  moldings  which  crown 
the  wall.  The  floral  frieze  under  the  moldings  is, 
however,  somewhat  more  elaborate  on  the  anta  than  on 


Fig.  68. — Anta-Capital  and  Wall-Band,  from  the  Erechtheum. 
British  Museum. 


the  adjacent  wall.  The  Ionic  method  of  ceiling  a 
peristyle  or  portico  may  be  partly  seen  in  Fig.  69.  The 
principal  ceiling-beams  here  rest  upon  the  architrave, 


Fig.  69. — The  North  Portico  of  the  Erechtheum. 


Greek  Architecture . 


IOI 


instead  of  upon  the  frieze,  as  in  a Doric  building  (cf. 
Fig.  56).  Above  were  the  usual  coffered  slabs.  The 
same  illustration  shows  a well-preserved  and  finely  pro- 
portioned doorway,  but  unfortunately  leaves  the  details 
of  its  ornamentation  indistinct. 

The  Ionic  order  was  much  used  in  the  Greek  cities  of 
Asia  Minor  for  peripteral  temples.  The  most  consider- 
able remains  of  such  buildings,  at  Ephesus,  Priene,  etc., 


Fig.  70.— Temple  of  Wingless  Victory.  Athens. 


belong  to  the  fourth  century  or  later.  In  Greece  proper 
there  is  no  known  instance  of  a peripteral  Ionic  temple, 
but  the  order  was  sometimes  used  for  small  prostyle 
and  amphiprostyle  buildings,  such  as  the  Temple  of 
Wingless  Victory  in  Athens  (Fig.  70).  Furthermore, 
Ionic  columns  were  sometimes  employed  in  the  interior 
of  Doric  temples,  as  at  Bassse  in  Arcadia  and  (probably) 
in  the  temple  built  by  Scopas  at  Tegea.  In  the 


102 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Propylaea  or  gateway  of  the  Athenian  Acropolis  we  even 
find  the  Doric  and  Ionic  orders  juxtaposed,  the  exterior 
architecture  being  Doric  and  the  interior  Ionic,  with  no 
wall  to  separate  them.  One  more  interesting  occurrence 
of  the  Ionic  order  in  Greece  proper  may  be  mentioned, 
viz.,  in  the  Philippeum  at  Olympia  (about  336  B.C.). 
This  is  a circular  building,  surrounded  by  an  Ionic  col- 
onnade. Still  other  types  of  building  afforded  oppor- 
tunity enough  for  the  employment  of  this  style. 

After  what  has  been  said  of  the  gradual  changes  in 
the  Doric  order,  it  will  be  understood  that  the  Ionic 
order  was  not  the  same  in  the  sixth  century  as  in  the 

fifth,  nor  in  the 
fifth  the  same  as 
in  the  third.  The 
most  striking 
change  concerns 
tKe~spira.r roll  of 
the  capital.  In 
the  good  period 
the  portion  of 
this  member 

Fig.  71.— Ionic  Capital  from  Samothrace.  which  connects 
(From  Puchstein,  “ Das  ionische  Capitell,’>  Fig.  34.)  . . 

the  volutes  is 

bounded  below  by  a depressed  curve,  graceful  and  vig- 
orous. With  the  gradual  degradation  of  taste  this  curve 
tended  to  become  a straight  line,  the  result  being  the 
unlovely,  mechanical  form  shown  in  Fig.  71  (from  a 
building  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  who  reigned  from  283 
to  246  B.C. ).  Better  formed  capitals  than  this  contin- 
ued for  some  time  to  be  made  in  Greek  lands  ; but  the 
type  just  shown,  or  rather  something  resembling  it  in 
the  disagreeable  feature  noted,  became  canonical  with 
Roman  architects. 


Greek  Architecture. 


103 


The  Corinthian  order,  as  it  is  commonly  called,  hardly 
deserves  to  be  called  a distinct  order.  Its  only  peculiar 
feature  is  the  capital  ; otherwise  it  agrees  with  the  Ionic 
order.  The  Corinthian  capital  is  said  to  have  been  in- 
vented in  the  fifth 
century  ; and  a soli- 
tary specimen,  of  a 
meager  and  rudimen- 
tary type,  found  in 
1812  in  the  Temple 
of  Apollo  at  Bassae, 
but  since  lost,  was 
perhaps  an  original 
part  of  that  building 
(about  430  B.  C. ). 

At  present  the  earliest  FlG-  from 

extant  specimens  are 

from  the  interior  of  a round  building  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury near  Epidaurus  in  Argolis  (Fig.  72).*  It  was  from 
such  a form  as  this  that  the  luxuriant  type  of  Corinthian 
capital  so  much  in  favor  with  Roman  architects  and  their 
public  was  derived.  On  the  other  hand,  the  form  shown 
in  Fig.  73,  from  a little  building  erected  in  334  B.  C.  or 
soon  after,  is  a variant  which  seems  to  have  left  no  lineal 
successors.  In  its  usual  form  the  Corinthian  capital  has 
a cylindrical  core,  which  expands  slightly  toward  the 
top  so  as  to  become  bell-shaped  ; around  the  lower  part 
of  this  core  are  two  raws  of  conventionalized  acanthus 
leaves,  eight  in  each  row  ; from  these  rise  eight  princi- 
pal stalks  (each,  in  fully  developed  examples,  wrapped 
about  its  base  with  an  acanthus  leaf)  which  combine, 
two  and  two,  to  form  four  volutes  ( helices ),  one  under 

* For  some  reason  or  other  the  particular  capital  shown  in  our  illustration 
was  not  used  in  the  building,  but  it  is  of  the  same  model  as  those  actually 
used,  except  that  the  edge  of  the  abacus  is  not  finished. 


104 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


each  corner  of  the  abacus,  while  smaller  stalks,  branch- 
ing from  the  first,  cover  the  rest  of  the  upper  part  of  the 
core  ; there  is  commonly  a floral  ornament  on  the  middle 
of  each  face  at  the  top  ; finally  the  abacus  has,  in  plan, 
the  form  of  a square  whose  sides  have  been  hollowed 
out  and  whose  corners  have  been  truncated.  In  the 
form  shown  in  Fig.  73  we  find,  first,  a row  of  sixteen 
simple  leaves,  like  those  of  a reed,  with  the  points  of  a 
second  row  showing  between  them  ; then  a single  row 
of  eight  acanthus  leaves  ; then  the  scroll-work,  support- 
ing a palmette  on  each  side  ; and  finally  an  abacus 
whose  profile  is  made  up  of  a trochilus  and  an  ovolo. 
This  capital, 
though  extremely 
elegant,  is  open  to 
the  charge  of  ap- 
pearing weak  at  its 
middle.  There  is 
a much  less  ornate 
variety,  also  reck- 
oned as  Corin- 
thian, which  has  no 
scroll-work,  but 
only  a row  of 
acanthus  leaves 
with  a row  of  reed 
leaves  above  them 

around  a bell-  Fig.  73.— Corinthian  Capital  from  the  Cho- 
ragic  Monument  of  Lysicrates.  Athens. 

shaped  core,  the 

whole  surmounted  by  a square  abacus.  In  the  Choragic 
Monument  of  Lysicrates  the  cornice  has  dentels,  and 
this  was  always  the  case,  so  far  as  we  know,  where  the 
Corinthian  capital  was  used.  In  Corinthian  buildings 
the  anta,  where  met  with,  has  a capital  like  that  of  the 


Greek  Architecture. 


105 


column.  But  there  is  very  little  material  to  generalize 
from  until  we  descend  to  Roman  times. 

Some  allusion  has  been  made  in  the  foregoing  to 
other  types  of  columnar  buildings  besides  the  temple. 
The  principal  ones  of  which  remains  exist  are  propylcea 
and  stoas.  Propylaea  is  the  Greek  name  for  a form  of 
gateway,  consisting  essentially  of  a cross  wall  between 
side  walls,  with  a portico  on  each  front.  Such  gateways 
occur  in  many  places  as  entrances  to  sacred  precincts. 
The  finest  example,  and  one  of  the  noblest  monuments 
of  Greek  architecture,  is  that  at  the  west  end  of  the 
Athenian  Acropolis.  The  stoa  may  be  defined  as  a 
building  having  an  open  range  of  columns  on  at  least 
one  side.  Usually  its  length  was  much  greater  than  its 
depth.  Stoas  were  often  built  in  sacred  precincts,  as  at 
Olympia,  and  also  for  secular  purposes  along  public 
streets,  as  in  Athens.  These  and  other  buildings  into 
which  the  column  entered  as  an  integral  feature  involved 
no  new  architectural  elements  or  principles. 

One  highly  important  fact  about  Greek  architecture 
has  thus  far  been  only  touched  upon  ; that  is,  the 
liberal  use  it  made  of  color.  The  ruins  of  Greek  temples 
are  to-day  monochromatic,  either  glittering  white,  as  is 
the  temple  at  Sunium,  or  of  a golden  brown,  as  are  the 
Parthenon  and  other  buildings  of  Pentelic  marble,  or  of 
a still  warmer  brown,  as  are  the  limestone  temples  of 
Psestum  and  Girgenti  (Acragas).  But  this  uniformity 
of  tint  is  due  only  to  time.  A “White  City,”  such  as 
made  the  pride  of  Chicago  in  1893,  would  have  been 
unimaginable  to  an  ancient  Greek.  Even  to-day  the 
attentive  observer  may  sometimes  see  upon  old  Greek 
buildings,  as,  for  example,  upon  ceiling-beams  of  the 
Parthenon,  traces  left  by  patterns  from  which  the  color 
has  vanished.  In  other  instances  remains  of  actual 


io6 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


color  exist.  So  specks  of  blue  paint  may  still  be  seen, 
or  might  a few  years  ago,  on  blocks  belonging  to  the 
Athenian  Propylaea.  But  our  most  abundant  evidence 
for  the  original  use  of  color  comes  from  architectural 
fragments  recently  unearthed.  During  the  excavation 
of  Olympia  (1875-81)  this  matter  of  the  coloring  of 
architecture  was  constantly  in  mind  and  a large  body  of 
facts  relating  to  it  was  accumulated.  Every  new  and 
important  excavation  adds  to  the  store.  At  present  our 
information  is  much  fuller  in  regard  to  the  polychromy 
of  Doric  than  of  Ionic  buildings.  It  appears  that,  just 
as  the  forms  and  proportions  of  a building  and  of  all  its 
details  were  determined  by  precedent,  yet  not  so  abso- 
lutely as  to  leave  no  scope  for  the  exercise  of  individual 
genius,  so  there  was  an  established  system  in  the  color- 
ing of  a building,  yet  a system  which  varied  somewhat 
according  to  time  and  place  and  the  taste  of  the  archi- 
tect. The  frontispiece  attempts  to  suggest  what  the 
coloring  of  the  Parthenon  was  like,  and  thus  to  illustrate 
the  general  scheme  of  Doric  polychromy.  The  colors 
used  were  chiefly  dark  blue,  sometimes  almost  black, 
and  red  ; green  and  yellow  also  occur,  and  some  details 
were  gilded.  The  coloration  of  the  building  was  far 
from  total.  Plain  surfaces,  as  walls,  were  unpainted. 
So  too  were  the  columns,  including,  probably,  their 
capitals,  except  between  the  annulets.  Thus  color  was 
confined  to  the  upper  members — the  triglyphs,  the 
under  surface  (soffit)  of  the  cornice,  the  sima;  the  anta- 
capitals  (cf.  Fig.  54),  the  ornamental  details  generally, 
the  coffers  of  the  ceiling,  and  the  backgrounds  of  sculp- 
ture.* The  triglyphs,  regulse,  and  mutules  were  blue  ; 
the  taenia  of  the  architrave  and  the  soffit  of  the  cornice 


* Our  frontispiece  gives  the  backgrounds  of  the  metopes  as  plain,  but  this 
is  probably  an  error. 


Greek  Architecture . 


107 


between  the  mutules  with  the  adjacent  narrow  bands 
were  red  ; the  backgrounds  of  sculpture,  either  blue  or 
red  ; the  hawk’s-beak  molding,  alternating  blue  and  red  ; 
and  so  on.  The  principal  uncertainty  regards  the  treat- 
ment of  the  unpainted  members.  Were  these  left  of  a 
glittering  white,  or  were  they  toned  down,  in  the  case  of 
marble  buildings,  by  some  application  or  other,  so  as  to 
contrast  less  glaringly  with  the  painted  portions  ? The 
latter  supposition  receives  some  confirmation  from 
Vitruvius,  a Roman  writer  on  architecture  of  the  age  of 
Augustus,  and  seems  to  some  modern  writers  to  be 
demanded  by  aesthetic  considerations.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  evidence  of  the  Olympia  buildings  points  the 
other  way.  Perhaps  the  actual  practice  varied.  As  for 
the  coloring  of  Ionic  architecture,  we  know  that  the 
capital  of  the  column  was  painted,  but  otherwise  our 
information  is  very  scanty. 

If  it  be  asked  what  led  the  Greeks  to  a use  of  color  so 
strange  to  us  and,  on  first  acquaintance,  so  little  to  our 
taste,  it  may  be  answered  that  possibly  the  example  of 
their  neighbors  had  something  to  do  with  it.  The 
architecture  of  Egypt,  of  Mesopotamia,  of  Persia,  was 
polychromatic.  But  probably  the  practice  of  the  Greeks 
was  in  the  main  an  inheritance  from  the  early  days  of 
their  own  civilization.  According  to  a well-supported 
theory,  the  Doric  temple  of  the  historical  period  is  a 
translation  into  stone  or  marble  of  a primitive  edifice 
whose  walls  were  of  sun-dried  bricks  and  whose  columns 
and  entablature  were  of  wood.  Now  it  is  natural  and 
appropriate  to  paint  wood  ; and  we  may  suppose  that 
the  taste  for  a partially  colored  architecture  was  thus 
formed.  This  theory  does  not  indeed  explain  every- 
thing. It  does  not,  for  example,  explain  why  the 
columns  or  the  architrave  should  be  uncolored.  In 


io8 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


short,  the  Greek  system  of  polychromy  presents  itself 
to  us  as  a largely  arbitrary  system. 

More  interesting  than  the  question  of  origin  is  the 
question  of  aesthetic  effect.  Was  the  Greek  use  of  color 
in  good  taste?  It  is  not  easy  to  answer  with  a simple 
yes  or  no.  Many  of  the  attempts  to  represent  the  facts 
by  restorations  on  paper  have  been  crude  and  vulgar 
enough.  On  the  other  hand,  some  experiments  in 
decorating  modern  buildings  with  color,  in  a fashion, 
to  be  sure,  much  less  liberal  than  that  of  ancient  Greece, 
have  produced  pleasing  results.  At  present  the  ques- 
tion is  rather  one  of  faith  than  of  sight  ; and  most 
students  of  the  subject  have  faith  to  believe  that  the 
appearance  of  a Greek  temple  in  all  its  pomp  of  color 
was  not  only  sumptuous,  but  harmonious  and  appro- 
priate. 

When  we  compare  the  architecture  of  Greece  with 
that  of  other  countries,  we  must  be  struck  with  the 
remarkable  degree  in  which  the  former  adhered  to 
established  usage,  both  in  the  general  plan  of  a building 
and  in  the  forms  and  proportions  of  each  feature.  Some 
measure  of  adherence  to  precedent  is  indeed  implied  in 
the  very  existence  of  an  architectural  style.  What  is 
meant  is  that  the  Greek  measure  was  unusual,  perhaps 
unparalleled.  Yet  the  following  of  established  canons 
was  not  pushed  to  a slavish  extreme.  A fine  Greek 
temple  could  not  be  built  according  to  a hard  and  fast 
rule.  While  the  architect  refrained  from  bold  and  law- 
less innovations,  he  yet  had  scope  to  exercise  his  genius. 
The  differences  between  the  Parthenon  and  any  other 
contemporary  Doric  temple  would  seem  slight,  when 
regarded  singly  ; but  the  preeminent  perfection  of  the 
Parthenon  lay  in  just  those  skilfully  calculated  differ- 


ences. 


Greek  Architecture. 


109 


A Greek  columnar  building  is  extremely  simple  in 
form.*  The  outlines  of  an  ordinary  temple  are  those  of 
an  oblong  rectangular  block  surmounted  by  a triangular 
roof.  With  a qualification  to  be  explained  presently,  all 
the  lines  of  the  building,  except  those  of  the  roof,  are 
either  horizontal  or  perpendicular.  The  most  compli- 
cated Greek  columnar  buildings  known,  the  Erechtheum 
and  the  Propylaea  of  the  Athenian  Acropolis,  are  sim- 
plicity itself  when  compared  to  a Gothic  cathedral,  with 
its  irregular  plan,  its  towers,  its  wheel  windows,  its  mul- 
titudinous diagonal  lines. 

The  extreme  simplicity  which  characterizes  the  gen- 
eral form  of  a Greek  building  extends  also  to  its  sculp- 
tured and  painted  ornaments.  In  the  Doric  style  these 
are  very  sparingly  used  ; and  even  the  Ionic  style, 
though  more  luxuriant,  seems  reserved  in  comparison 
with  the  wealth  of  ornamental  detail  in  a Gothic  cathe- 
dral. Moreover,  the  Greek  ornaments  are  simple  in 
character.  Examine  again  the  hawk’s-beak,  the  egg- 
and-dart,  the  leaf-and-dart,  the  astragal,  the  guilloche, 
the  honeysuckle,  the  meander  or  fret.  These  are 
almost  the  only  continuous  patterns  in  use  in  Greek 
architecture.  Each  consists  of  a small  number  of  ele- 
ments recurring  in  unvarying  order  ; a short  section  is 
enough  to  give  the  entire  pattern.  Contrast  this  with 
the  string-course  in  the  nave  of  the  Cathedral  of  Amiens, 
where  the  motive  of  the  design  undergoes  constant 
variation,  no  piece  exactly  duplicating  its  neighbor,  or 
with  the  intricate  interlacing  patterns  of  Arabic  decora- 
tion, and  you  will  have  a striking  illustration  of  the 
Greek  love  for  the  finite  and  comprehensible. 

When  it  was  said  just  now  that  the  main  lines  of  a 

* The  substance  of  this  paragraph  and  the  following  is  borrowed  from 
Boutmy,  “ Philosophic  de  1’ Architecture  en  Grece”  (Paris,  1870). 


no 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


Greek  temple  are  either  horizontal  or  perpendicular,  the 
statement  called  for  qualification.  The  elevations  of  the 
most  perfect  of  Doric  buildings,  the  Parthenon,  could 
not  be  drawn  with  a ruler.  Some  of  the  apparently 
straight  lines  are  really  curved.  The  stylobate  is  not 
level,  but  convex,  the  rise  of  the  curve  amounting  to 
of  the  length  of  the  building  ; the  architrave  has 
also  a rising  curve,  but  slighter  than  that  of  the  stylo- 
bate. Then  again,  many  of  the  lines  that  would  com- 
monly be  taken  for  vertical  are  in  reality  slightly  in- 
clined. The  columns  slope  inward  and  so  do  the  prin- 
cipal surfaces  of  the  building,  while  the  anta-capitals 
slope  forward.  These  refinements,  or  some  of  them, 
have  been  observed  in  several  other  buildings.  They 
are  commonly  regarded  as  designed  to  obviate  certain 
optical  illusions  supposed  to  arise  in  their  absence.  But 
perhaps,  as  one  writer  has  suggested,  their  principal 
office  was  to  save  the  building  from  an  appearance  of 
mathematical  rigidity,  to  give  it  something  of  the 
semblance  of  a living  thing. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  these  manifold  subtle  curves  and 
sloping  lines  testify  to  the  extraordinary  nicety  of 
Greek  workmanship.  A column  of  the  Parthenon, 
with  its  inclination,  its  tapering,  its  entasis,  and  its 
fluting,  could  not  have  been  constructed  without  the 
most  conscientious  skill.  In  fact,  the  capabilities  of  the 
workmen  kept  pace  with  the  demands  of  the  architects. 
No  matter  how  delicate  the  adjustment  to  be  made,  the 
task  was  perfectly  achieved.  And  when  it  came  to  the 
execution  of  ornamental  details,  these  were  wrought 
with  a free  hand  and,  in  the  best  period,  with  fine 
artistic  feeling.  The  wall-band  of  the  Erechtheum  is 
one  of  the  most  exquisite  things  which  Greece  has  left 
us. 


Greek  Architecture . 


ill 


Simplicity  in  general  form,  harmony  of  proportion, 
refinement  of  line — these  are  the  great  features  of  Greek 
columnar  architecture. 

One  other  type  of  Greek  building,  into  which  the 
column  does  not  enter,  or  enters  only  in  a very  subor- 
dinate way,  remains  to  be  mentioned — the  theater. 
Theaters  abounded  in  Greece.  Every  considerable  city 
and  many  a smaller  place  had  at  least  one,  and  the 


Fig.  74. — Theater.  Epidaurus. 

ruins  of  these  structures  rank  with  temples  and  walls  of 
fortification  among  the  commonest  classes  of  ruins  in 
Greek  lands.  But  in  a sketch  of  Greek  art  they  may  be 
rapidly  dismissed.  That  part  of  the  theater  which  was 
occupied  by  spectators — the  auditorium,  as  we  may  call 
it — was  commonly  built  into  a natural  slope,  helped 
out  by  means  of  artificial  embankments  and  supporting 
walls.  There  was  no  roof.  The  building,  therefore, 
had  no  exterior,  or  none  to  speak  of.  Such  beauty 


1 1 2 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


as  it  possessed  was  due  mainly  to  its  proportions.  The 
theater  at  the  sanctuary  of  Asclepius  near  Epidaurus, 
the  work  of  the  same  architect  who  built  the  round 
building  with  the  Corinthian  columns  referred  to  on  page 
103,  was  distinguished  in  ancient  times  for  “harmony 
and  beauty,”  as  the  Greek  traveler,  Pausanias  (about 
165  A.  D.),  puts  it.  It  is  fortunately  one  of  the  best 
preserved.  Fig.  74,  a view  taken  from  a considerable 
distance,  will  give  some  idea  of  that  quality  which 
Pausanias  justly  admired.  Fronting  the  auditorium 
was  the  stage  building,  of  which  little  but  foundations 
remains  anywhere.  So  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  this 
stage  building  had  but  small  architectural  pretensions 
until  the  post-classical  period  (z.  e.y  after  Alexander). 
But  there  was  opportunity  for  elegance  as  well  as  con- 
venience in  the  form  given  to  the  stone  or  marble  seats 
with  which  the  auditorium  was  provided. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE. GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS. 

In  the  Mycenaean  period,  as  we  have  seen,  the  art  of 
sculpture  had  little  existence,  except  for  the  making  of 
small  images  and  the  decoration  of  small  objects.  We 
have  now  to  take  up  the  story  of  the  rise  of  this  art  to 
an  independent  and  commanding  position,  of  its  per- 
fection and  its  subsequent  decline.  The  beginner  must 
not  expect  to  find  this  story  told  with  as  much  fulness 
and  certainty  as  is  possible  in  dealing  with  the  art  of  the 
Renaissance  or  any  more  modern  period.  The  impossi- 
bility of  equal  fulness  and  certainty  here  will  become 
apparent  when  we  consider  what  our  materials  for  con- 
structing a history  of  Greek  sculpture  are. 

First,  we  have  a quantity  of  notices,  more  or  less  rele- 
vant, in  ancient  Greek  and  Roman  authors,  chiefly  of 
the  time  of  the  Roman  Empire.  These  notices  are  of 
the  most  miscellaneous  description.  They  come  from 
writers  of  the  most  unlike  tastes  and  the  most  unequal 
degrees  of  trustworthiness.  They  are  generally  very 
vague,  leaving  most  that  we  want  to  know  unsaid.  And 
they  have  such  a haphazard  character  that,  when  taken 
all  together,  they  do  not  begin  to  cover  the  field. 
Nothing  like  all  the  works  of  the  greater  sculptors,  let 
alone  the  lesser  ones,  are  so  much  as  mentioned  by 
name  in  extant  ancient  literature. 

Secondly,  we  have  several  hundreds  of  original  in- 
scriptions belonging  to  Greek  works  of  sculpture  and 
containing  the  names  of  the  artists  who  made  them.  It 


H4 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


was  a common  practice,  in  the  case  especially  of  inde- 
pendent statues  in  the  round,  for  the  sculptor  to  attach 
his  signature,  generally  to  the  pedestal.  Unfortunately, 
while  great  numbers  of  these  inscribed  pedestals  have 
been  preserved  for  us,  it  is  very  rarely  that  we  have  the 
statues  which  once  belonged  on  them.  Moreover,  the 
artists’  names  which  we  meet  on  the  pedestals  are  in 
a large  proportion  of  cases  names  not  even  mentioned 
by  our  literary  sources.  In  fact,  there  is  only  one  in- 
disputable case  where  we  possess  both  a statue  and  the 
pedestal  belonging  to  it,  the  latter  inscribed  with  the 
name  of  an  artist  known  to  us  from  literary  tradition. 
(See  pages  212-3.) 

Thirdly,  we  have  the  actual  remains  of  Greek  sculp- 
ture, a constantly  accumulating  store,  yet  only  an 
insignificant  remnant  of  what  once  existed.  These 
works  have  suffered  sad  disfigurement.  Not  one  life- 
sized  figure  has  reached  us  absolutely  intact ; but  few 
have  escaped  serious  mutilation.  Most  of  those  found 
before  the  beginning  of  this  century,  and  some  of  those 
found  since,  have  been  subjected  to  a process  known  as 
‘ ‘ restoration.  ’ ’ Missing  parts  have  been  supplied,  often 
in  the  most  arbitrary  and  tasteless  manner,  and  injured 
surfaces,  e.  g.,  of  faces,  have  been  polished,  with  irrep-' 
arable  damage  as  the  result. 

Again,  it  is  important  to  recognize  that  the  creations 
of  Greek  sculpture  which  have  been  preserved  to  us  are 
partly  original  Greek  works,  partly  copies  executed  in 
Roman  times  from  Greek  originals.  Originals,  and 
especially  important  originals,  are  scarce.  The  statues 
of  gold  and  ivory  have  left  not  a vestige  behind.  Those 
of  bronze,  once  numbered  by  thousands,  went  long  ago, 
with  few  exceptions,  into  the  melting-pot.  Even 
sculptures  in  marble,  though  the  material  was  less  valu- 


Greek  Sculpture . 


ii5 


able,  have  been  thrown  into  the  lime-kiln  or  used  as 
building  stone  or  wantonly  mutilated  or  ruined  by  neg- 
lect. There  does  not  exist  to-day  a single  certified 
original  work  by  any  one  of  the  six  greatest  sculptors  of 
Greece,  except  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  (see  page  221 
Copies  are  more  plentiful.  As  nowadays  many  museums 
and  private  houses  have  on  their  walls  copies  of  paintings 
by  the  “ old  masters,”  so,  and  far  more  usually,  the  pub- 
lic and  private  buildings  of  imperial  Rome  and  of  many 
of  the  cities  under  her  sway  were  adorned  with  copies  of 
famous  works  by  the  sculptors  of  ancient  Greece.  Any 
piece  of  sculpture  might  thus  be  multiplied  indefinitely  ; 
and  so  it  happens  that  we  often  possess  several  copies, 
or  even  some  dozens  of  copies,  of  one  and  the  same  orig- 
inal. Most  of  the  masterpieces  of  Greek  sculpture  which 
are  known  to  us  at  all  are  known  only  in  this  way. 

The  question  therefore  arises,  How  far  are  these 
copies  to  be  trusted  ? It  is  impossible  to  answer  in  gen- 
eral terms.  The  instances  are  very  few  where  we 
possess  at  once  the  original  and  a copy.  The  best  case 
of  the  kind  is  afforded  by  Fig.  75,  compared  with  Fig. 
132.  Here  the  head,  fore-arms,  and  feet  of  the  copy 
are  modern  and  consequently  do  not  enter  into  consider- 
ation. Limiting  one’s  attention  to  the  antique  parts  of 
the  figure,  one  sees  that  it  is  a tolerably  close,  and  yet  a 
hard  and  lifeless,  imitation  of  the  original.  This  gives  us 
some  measure  of  the  degree  of  fidelity  we  may  expect  in 
favorable  cases.  Generally  speaking,  we  have  to  form 
our  estimate  of  the  faithfulness  of  a copy  by  the  quality 
of  its  workmanship  and  by  a comparison  of  it  with  other 
copies,  where  such  exist.  Often  we  find  two  or  more 
copies  agreeing  with  one  another  as  closely  as  possible. 
This  shows — and  the  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  other 
evidence — that  means  existed  in  Roman  times  of  repro- 


n6 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


ducing  statues  with  the  help  of  measurements  mechan- 
ically taken.  At  the  same  time,  a comparison  of  copies 

makes  it  apparent 
that  copyists,  even 
when  aiming  to  be 
exact  in  the  main, 
often  treated  details 
and  accessories  with 
a good  deal  of  free- 
dom. Of  course, 
too,  the  skill  and 
conscientiousness  of 
the  copyists  varied 
enormously.  Fi- 
nally, besides 
copies,  we  have  to 
reckon  with  varia- 
tions and  modern- 
izations in  every 
degree  of  earlier 
works.  Under  these 
circumstances  it  will 
easily  be  seen  that 
the  task  of  recon- 
structing a lost  origi- 
nal from  extant 
imitations  is  a very 
delicate  and  perilous 
one.  Who  could 
adequately  appreci- 
ate the  Sistine  Ma- 

Fig.  75.— Copy  of  a Caryatid  of  the  Erech-  donna,  if  the  inimi- 
theum.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum.  table  touch  of 

Raphael  were  known  to  us  only  at  second-hand  ? 


Greek  Sculpture . 


117 


Any  history  of  Greek  sculpture  attempts  to  piece  to- 
gether the  several  classes  of  evidence  above  described. 
It  classifies  the  actual  remains,  seeking  to  assign  to  each 
piece  its  place  and  date  of  production  and  to  infer  from 
direct  examination  and  comparison  the  progress  of 
artistic  methods  and  ideas.  And  this  it  does  with  con- 
stant reference  to  what  literature  and  inscriptions  have 
to  tell  us.  But  in  the  fragmentary  state  of  our  materials, 
it  is  evident  that  the  whole  subject  must  be  beset  with 
doubt.  Great  and  steady  progress  has  indeed  been 
made  since  Winckelmann,  the  founder  of  the  science  of 
classical  archaeology,  produced  the  first  “ History  of 
Ancient  Art”  (published  in  1763)  ; but  twilight  still 
reigns  over  many  an  important  question.  This  general 
warning  should  be  borne  in  mind  in  reading  this  or  any 
other  hand-book  of  the  subject. 

We  may  next  take  up  the  materials  and  the  technical 
processes  of  Greek  sculpture.  These  may  be  classified 
as  follows  : 

(1)  Wood.  Wood  was  often,  if  not  exclusively,  used 
for  the  earliest  Greek  temple-images,  those  rude  xoana , 
of  which  many  survived  into  the  historical  period,  to  be 
regarded  with  peculiar  veneration.  We  even  hear  of 
wooden  statues  made  in  the  developed  period  of  Greek 
art.  But  this  was  certainly  exceptional.  Wood  plays 
no  part  worth  mentioning  in  the  fully  developed  sculp- 
ture of  Greece,  except  as  it  entered  into  the  making  of 
gold  and  ivory  statues  or  of  the  cheaper  substitutes  for 
these. 

(2)  Stone  and  marble.  Various  uncrystallized  lime- 
stones were  frequently  used  in  the  archaic  period  and 
here  and  there  even  in  the  fifth  century.  But  white 
marble,  in  which  Greece  abounds,  came  also  early  into 


1 18 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


use,  and  its  immense  superiority  to  limestone  for 
statuary  purposes  led  to  the  abandonment  of  the  latter. 
The  choicest  varieties  of  marble  were  the  Parian  and 
Pentelic  {cf.  page  77).  Both  of  these  were  exported  to 
every  part  of  the  Greek  world. 

A Greek  marble  statue  or  group  is  often  not  made 
of  a single  piece.  Thus  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  (page 
249)  was  made  of  two  principal  pieces,  the  junction 
coming  just  above  the  drapery,  while  several  smaller 
parts,  including  the  left  arm,  were  made  separately  and 
attached.  The  Laocoon  group  (page  265),  which  Pliny 
expressly  alleges  to  have  been  made  of  a single  block, 
is  in  reality  made  of  six.  Often  the  head  was  made 
separately  from  the  body,  sometimes  of  a finer  quality 
of  marble,  and  then  inserted  into  a socket  prepared  for 
it  in  the  neck  of  the  figure.  And  very  often,  when  the 
statue  was  mainly  of  a single  block,  small  pieces  were 
attached,  sometimes  in  considerable  numbers.  Of 
course  the  joining  was  done  with  extreme  nicety,  and 
would  have  escaped  ordinary  observation. 

In  the  production  of  a modern  piece  of  marble  sculp- 
ture, the  artist  first  makes  a clay  model  and  then  a mere 
workman  produces  from  this  a marble  copy.  In  the 
best  period  of  Greek  art,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
seems  to  have  been  no  mechanical  copying  of  finished 
models.  Preliminary  drawings  or  even  clay  models, 
perhaps  small,  there  must  often  have  been  to  guide  the 
eye  ; but  the  sculptor,  instead  of  copying  with  the  help 
of  exact  measurements,  struck  out  freely,  as  genius  and 
training  inspired  him.  If  he  made  a mistake,  the  result 
was  not  fatal,  for  he  could  repair  his  error  by  attaching  a 
fresh  piece  of  marble.  Yet  even  so,  the  ability  to  work 
in  this  way  implies  marvelous  precision  of  eye  and  hand. 
To  this  ability  and  this  method  we  may  ascribe  some- 


Greek  Sculpture.  ”9 


thing  of  the  freedom,  the  vitality,  and  the  impulsiveness 
of  Greek  marble  sculpture— qualities  which  the  mechani- 
cal method  of  production  tends  to  destroy.  _ Observe 
too  that,  while  pediment-groups,  metopes,  friezes,  and 
reliefs  upon  pedestals  would  often  be  executed  by  sub- 
ordinates following  the  design  of  the  principal  artist, 
any  important  single  statue  or  group  in  marble  was  in 
all  probability  chiseled  by  the  very  hand  of  the  master. 

Another  fact  of  importance,  a fact  which  few  are  able 
to  keep  constantly  enough  in  their  thoughts,  is  that 
Greek  marble  sculpture  was  always  more  or  less  paintech 
This  is  proved  both  by  statements  in  ancient  authors  and 
by  the  fuller  and  more  explicit  evidence  of  numberless 
actual  remains.  (See  especially  pages  148,  247.)  From 
these  sources  we  learn  that  eyes,  eyebrows,  hair,  and 
perhaps  lips  were  regularly  painted,  and  that  draperies 
and  other  accessories  were  often  painted  in  whole  or  in 
part.  As  regards  the  treatment  of  flesh  the  evidence  is 
conflicting.  Some  instances  are  reported  where  the 
flesh  of  men  was  colored  a reddish  brown,  as  in  the 
sculpture  of  Egypt.  But  the  evidence  seems  to  me  to 
warrant  the  inference  that  this  was  unusual  in  marble 
sculpture.  On  the  “Alexander”  sarcophagus  the 
nude  flesh  has  been  by  some  process  toned  down  to  an 
^-ivory  tint,  and  this  treatment  may  have  been  the  rule, 
although  most  sculptures  which  retain  remains  of  color 
show  no  trace  of  this.  Observe  that  wherever  color  was 
applied,  it  was  laid  on  in  “ flat”  tints,  i.  e.,  not  graded 
or  shaded. 

This  polychromatic  character  of  Greek  marble  sculp- 
ture is  at  variance  with  what  we  moderns  have  been 
accustomed  to  since  the  Renaissance.  By  practice  and 
theory  we  have  been  taught  that  sculpture  and  painting 
are  entirely  distinct  arts.  And  in  the  austere  renuncia- 


120 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


tion  by  sculpture  of  all  color  there  has  even  been  seen 
a special  distinction,  a claim  to  precedence  in  the 
hierarchy  of  the  arts.  The  Greeks  had  no  such  idea. 
The  sculpture  of  the  older  nations  about  them  was  poly- 
chromatic ; their  own  early  sculpture  in  wood  and  coarse 
stone  was  almost  necessarily  so  ; their  architecture,  with 
which  sculpture  was  often  associated,  was  so  likewise. 
The  coloring  of  marble  sculpture,  then,  was  a natural 
result  of  the  influences  by  which  that  sculpture  was 
molded.  And,  of  course,  the  Greek  eye  took  pleasure 
in  the  combination  of  form  and  color,  and  presumably 
would  have  found  pure  white  figures  like  ours  dull  and 
cold.  We  are  better  circumstanced  for  judging  Greek 
taste  in  this  matter  than  in  the  matter  of  colored  archi- 
tecture, for  we  possess  Greek  sculptures  which  have  kept 
their  coloring  almost  intact.  A sight  of  the  “Alex- 
ander ’ ’ sarcophagus,  if  it  does  not  revolutionize  our  own 
taste,  will  at  least  dispel  any  fear  that  a Greek  artist  was 
capable  of  outraging  beautiful  form  by  a vulgarizing 
addition. 

(3)  Bronze.  This  material  (an  alloy  of  copper  with 
tin  and  sometimes  lead),  always  more  expensive  than 
marble,  was  the  favorite  material  of  some  of  the  most 
eminent  sculptors  (Myron,  Polyclitus,  Lysippus)  and 
for  certain  purposes  was  always  preferred.  The  art  of 
casting  small,  solid  bronze  images  goes  far  back  into  the 
prehistoric  period  in  Greece.  At  an  early  date,  too  (we 
cannot  say  how  early),  large  bronze  statues  could  be 
made  of  a number  of  separate  pieces,  shaped  by  the 
hammer  and  riveted  together.  Such  a work  was  seen 
at  Sparta  by  the  traveler  Pausanias,  and  was  regarded 
by  him  as  the  most  ancient  existing  statue  in  bronze.  A 
great  impulse  must  have  been  given  to  bronze  sculpture 
by  the  introduction  of  the  process  of  hollow-casting. 


Greek  Sculpture. 


I 2 1 


Pausanias  repeatedly  attributes  the  invention  of  this 
process  to  Rhoecus  and  Theodorus,  two  Samian  artists, 
who  flourished  apparently  early  in  the  sixth  century. 
This  may  be  substantially  correct,  but  the  process  is 
much  more  likely  to  have  been  borrowed  from  Egypt 
than  invented  independently. 

In  producing  a bronze  statue  it  is  necessary  first  to 
make  an  exact  clay  model.  This  done,  the  usual  Greek 
practice  seems  to  have  been  to  dismember  the  model  and 
take  a casting  of  each  part  separately.  The  several 
bronze  pieces  were  then  carefully  united  by  rivets  or 
solder,  and  small  defects  were  repaired  by  the  insertion 
of  quadrangular  patches  of  bronze.  The  eye-sockets 
were  always  left  hollow  in  the  casting,  and  eyeballs  of 
glass,  metal,  or  other  materials,  imitating  cornea  and 
iris,  were  inserted.*  Finally,  the  whole  was  gone  over 
with  appropriate  tools,  the  hair,  for  example,  being  fur- 
rowed with  a sharp  graver  and  thus  receiving  a peculiar, 
metallic  definiteness  of  texture. 

A hollow  bronze  statue  being  much  lighter  than  one 
in  marble  and  much  less  brittle,  a sculptor  could  be 
much  bolder  in  posing  a figure  of  the  former  material 
than  one  of  the  latter.  Hence  when  a Greek  bronze 
statue  was  copied  in  marble  in  Roman  times,  a disfigur- 
ing support,  not  present  in  the  original,  had  often  to  be 
added  (cf.  Figs,  ioi,  104,  etc.).  The  existence  of  such 
a support  in  a marble  work  is,  then,  one  reason  among 
others  for  assuming  a bronze  original.  Other  indica- 
tions pointing  the  same  way  are  afforded  by  a peculiar 
sharpness  of  edge,  e.g. , of  the  eyelids  and  the  eyebrows, 
and  by  the  metallic  treatment  of  the  hair.  These  points 
are  well  illustrated  by  Fig.  76.  Notice  especially  the 
curls,  which  in  the  original  would  have  been  made  of 

* Marble  statues  also  sometimes  had  inserted  eyes. 


122 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


separate  strips  of  bronze,  twisted  and  attached  after  the 
casting  of  the  figure. 

Bronze  reliefs  were  not  cast,  but  produced  by 
hammering.  This  is  what  is  called  repousse  work. 
These  bronze  reliefs  were  of  small  size,  and  were 
used  for  ornamenting  helmets,  cuirasses,  mirrors,  and 
so  on. 

(4)  Gold  and  ivory.  Chryselephantine  statues,  i.e., 
statues  of  gold  and  ivory,  must,  from  the  costliness  of 

the  materials,  have 
been  always  com- 
paratively rare. 
Most  of  them, 
though  not  all,  were 
temple -images,  and 
the  most  famous 
ones  were  of  colossal 
size.  We  are  very 
imperfectly  in- 
formed as  to  how 
these  figures  were 
made.  The  colossal 
ones  contained  a 
strong  framework 
of  timbers  and  metal 
bars,  over  which  was 
built  a figure  of 
wood.  To  this  the 
gold  and  ivory  were 

Fig.  76.— Head  of  the  Farnese  Athena.  attorhprl  ivnrv  hp- 

Naples.  (From  Furtwangler,  “ Meisterwerke  ^Liduicu,  ivui y 

der  griechischen  Plastik,”  Fig.  16.)  Jng  usecJ  for  f Jesh 

and  gold  for  all  other  parts.  The  gold  on  the  Athena 
of  the  Parthenon  ( cf.  page  186)  weighed  a good  deal 
over  a ton.  But  costly  as  these  works  were,  the  ad- 


Greek  Sculpture . 


123 


miration  felt  for  them  seems  to  have  been  untainted  by 
any  thought  of  that  fact. 

(5)  Terra-cotta.  This  was  used  at  all  periods  for 
small  figures,  a few  inches  high,  immense  numbers  of 
which  have  been  preserved  to  us.  But  large  terra-cotta 
figures,  such  as  were  common  in  Etruria,  were  probably 
quite  exceptional  in  Greece. 

Greek  sculpture  may  be  classified,  according  to  the 
purposes  which  it  served,  under  the  following  heads  : 

( 1 ) Architectural  sculpture.  A temple  could  hardly 
be  considered  complete  unless  it  was  adorned  with  more 
or  less  of  sculpture.  The  chief  place  for  such  sculpture 
was  in  the  pediments  and  especially  in  the  principal  or 
eastern  pediment.  Relief-sculpture  might  be  applied  to 
Doric  metopes  or  an  Ionic  frieze.  And  finally,  single 
statues  or  groups  might  be  placed,  as  acroteria,  upon 
the  apex  and  lower  corners  of  a pediment.  Other  sacred 
buildings  besides  temples  might  be  similarly  adorned. 
But  we  hear  very  little  of  sculpture  on  secular  buildings. 

(2)  Cult-images.  As  a rule,  every  temple  or  shrine 
contained  at  least  one  statue  of  the  divinity,  or  of  each 
divinity,  worshiped  there. 

(3)  Votive  sculptures.  It  was  the  habit  of  the  Greeks 
to  present  to  their  divinities  all  sorts  of  objects  in  recog- 
nition of  past  favors  or  in  hope  of  favors  to  come. 
Among  these  votive  objects  or  anathemata  works  of 
sculpture  occupied  a large  and  important  place. 
The  subjects  of  such  sculptures  were  various.  Statues  of 
the  god  or  goddess  to  whom  the  dedication  was  made 
were  common  ; but  perhaps  still  commoner  were  figures 
representing  human  persons,  either  the  dedicators  them- 
selves or  others  in  whom  they  were  nearly  interested. 
Under  this  latter  head  fall  most  of  the  many  statues  of 


124 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


victors  in  the  athletic  games.  These  were  set  up  in 
temple  precincts,  like  that  of  Zeus  at  Olympia,  that  of 
Apollo  at  Delphi,  or  that  of  Athena  on  the  Acropolis  of 
Athens,  and  were,  in  theory  at  least,  intended  rather  as 
thank-offerings  than  as  means  of  glorifying  the  victors 
themselves. 

(4)  Sepulchral  sculpture.  Sculptured  grave  monu- 
ments were  common  in  Greece  at  least  as  early  as  the 
sixth  century.  The  most  usual  monument  was  a slab  of 
marble — the  form  varying  according  to  place  and  time 
— sculptured  with  an  idealized  representation  in  relief  of 
the  deceased  person,  often  with  members  of  his  family. 

(5)  Honorary  statues.  Statues  representing  dis- 
tinguished men,  contemporary  or  otherwise,  could  be 
set  up  by  state  authority  in  secular  places  or  in  sanctu- 
aries. The  earliest  known  case  of  this  kind  is  that  of 
Harmodius  and  Aristogiton,  shortly  after  510  B.  C.  ff. 
pages  160-4).  The  practice  gradually  became  common, 
reaching  an  extravagant  development  in  the  period  after 
Alexander. 

(6)  Sculpture  used  merely  as  ornament,  and  having 
no  sacred  or  public  character.  This  class  belongs 
mainly,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  latest  period  of  Greek  art. 
It  would  be  going  beyond  our  evidence  to  say  that 
never,  in  the  great  age  of  Greek  sculpture,  was  a statue 
or  a relief  produced  merely  as  an  ornament  for  a private 
house  or  the  interior  of  a secular  building.  But  certain 
it  is  that  the  demand  for  such  things  before  the  time  of 
Alexander,  if  it  existed  at  all,  was  inconsiderable.  It 
may  be  neglected  in  a broad  survey  of  the  conditions  of 
artistic  production  in  the  great  age. 

The  foregoing  list,  while  not  quite  exhaustive,  is  suf- 
ficiently so  for  present  purposes.  It  will  be  seen  how 
inspiring  and  elevating  was  the  role  assigned  to  the 


Greek  Sculpture . 


125 


sculptor  in  Greece.  His  work,  destined  to  be  seen  by 
intelligent  and  sympathetic  multitudes,  appealed,  not  to 
the  coarser  elements  of  their  nature,  but  to  the  most 
serious  and  exalted.  Hence  Greek  sculpture  of  the  best 
period  is  always  pure  and  noble.  The  grosser  aspects 
of  Greek  life,  which  flaunt  themselves  shamelessly  in 
Attic  comedy,  as  in  some  of  the  designs  upon  Attic 
vases,  do  not  invade  the  province  of  this  art. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  say  a word  in  explanation  of 
that  frank  and  innocent  nudity  which  is  so  characteristic 
a trait  of  the  best  Greek  art.  The  Greek  admiration  for 
the  masculine  body  and  the  willingness  to  display  it  were 
closely  bound  up  with  the  extraordinary  importance  in 
Greece  of  gymnastic  exercises  and  contests  and  with  the 
habits  which  these  engendered.  As  early  as  the  seventh 
century,  if  not  earlier,  the  competitors  in  the  foot-race 
at  Olympia  dispensed  with  the  loin-cloth,  which  had  pre- 
viously been  the  sole  covering  worn.  In  other  Olympic 
contests  the  example  thus  set  was  not  followed  till  some 
time  later,  but  in  the  gymnastic  exercises  of  every-day 
life  the  same  custom  must  have  early  prevailed.  Thus 
in  contrast  to  primitive  Greek  feeling  and  to  the  feeling 
of  ‘ ‘ barbarians  ’ ’ generally,  the  exhibition  by  men  among 
men  of  the  naked  body  came  to  be  regarded  as  some- 
thing altogether  honorable.  There  could  not  be  better 
evidence  of  this  than  the  fact  that  the  archer-god, 
Apollo,  the  purest  god  in  the  Greek  pantheon,  does  not 
deign  in  Greek  art  to  veil  the  glory  of  his  form. 

Greek  sculpture  had  a strongly  idealizing  bent.  Gods 
and  goddesses  were  conceived  in  the  likeness  of  human 
beings,  but  human  beings  freed  from  every  blemish, 
made  august  and  beautiful  by  the  artistic  imagination. 
The  subjects  of  architectural  sculpture  were  mainly 
mythological,  historical  scenes  being  very  rare  in  purely 


126 


A History  of  Greek  Art, 


Greek  work ; and  these  legendary  themes  offered  little 
temptation  to  a literal  copying  of  every-day  life.  But 
what  is  most  noteworthy  is  that  even  in  the  representa- 
tion of  actual  human  persons,  e.  g .,  in  athlete  statues 
and  upon  grave  monuments,  Greek  sculpture  in  the 
best  period  seems  not  to  have  even  aimed  at  exact 
portraiture.  The  development  of  realistic  portraiture 
belongs  mainly  to  the  age  of  Alexander  and  his  succes- 
sors. 

Mr.  Ruskin  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  a Greek  “ never 
expresses  personal  character,”  and  “ never  expresses 
momentary  passion.”*  These  are  reckless  verdicts, 
needing  much  qualification.  For  the  art  of  the  fourth 
century  they  will  not  do  at  all,  much  less  for  the  later 
period.  But  they  may  be  of  use  if  they  lead  us  to  note 
the  preference  for  the  typical  and  permanent  with  which 
Greek  sculpture  begins,  and  the  very  gradual  way  in 
which  it  progresses  toward  the  expression  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  transient.  However,  even  in  the  best 
period  the  most  that  we  have  any  right  to  speak  of  is  a 
prevailing  tendency.  Greek  art  was  at  all  times  very 
much  alive,  and  the  student  must  be  prepared  to  find 
exceptions  to  any  formula  that  can  be  laid  down. 

* “ Aratra  Pentelici,”  Lecture  VI.,  191,  193. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 

FIRST  HALF  I 625(?)~550  B.  C. 

The  date  above  suggested  for  the  beginning  of  the 
period  with  which  we  have  first  to  deal  must  not  be  re- 
garded as  making  any  pretense  to  exactitude.  We  have 
no  means  of  assigning  a definite  date  to  any  of  the  most 
primitive-looking  pieces  of  Greek  sculpture.  All  that 
can  be  said  is  that  works  which  can  be  confidently  dated 
about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  show  such  a degree 
of  advancement  as  implies  more  than  half  a century  of 
development  since  the  first  rude  beginnings. 

Tradition  and  the  more  copious  evidence  of  actual 
remains  teach  us  that  these  early  attempts  at  sculpture 
in  stone  or  marble  were  not  confined  to  any  one  spot  or 
narrow  region.  On  the  contrary,  the  centers  of  artistic 
activity  were  numerous  and  widely  diffused — the  islands 
of  Crete,  Paros,  and  Naxos  ; the  Ionic  cities  of  Asia 
Minor  and  the  adjacent  islands  of  Chios  and  Samos  ; in 
Greece  proper,  Bceotia,  Attica,  Argolis,  Arcadia, 
Laconia  ; in ' Sicily,  the  Greek  colony  Selinus  ; and 
doubtless  many  others.  It  is  very  difficult  to  make  out 
how  far  these  different  spots  were  independent  of  one 
another  ; how  far,  in  other  words,  we  have  a right  to 
speak  of  local  ‘ ‘ schools  ’ ’ of  sculpture.  Certainly  there 
was  from  the  first  a good  deal  of  action  and  reaction  be- 
tween some  of  these  places,  and  one  chief  problem  of  the 
subject  is  to  discover  the  really  originative  centers  of 
artistic  impulse,  and  to  trace  the  spread  of  artistic  types 


127 


128 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


and  styles  and  methods 
from  place  to  place.  In- 
stead of  attempting  here 
to  discuss  or  decide  this 
difficult  question,  it  will 
be  better  simply  to  pass 
in  review  a few  typical 
works  of  the  early 
archaic  period  from 
various  sites. 

The  first  place  may  be 
given  to  a marble  image 
(Fig.  77)  found  in  1878 
on  the  island  of  Delos, 
that  ancient  center  of 
Apolline  worship  for  the 
Ionians.  On  the  left 
side  of  the  figure  is  en- 
graved in  early  Greek 
characters  a metrical  in- 
scription, recording  that 
the  statue  was  dedicated 
to  Artemis  by  one 
Nicandra  of  Naxos. 
Whether  it  was  in- 
tended to  represent  the 
goddess  Artemis  or  the 
woman  Nicandra,  we 
cannot  tell  ; nor  is  the 
question  of  much  im- 
portance to  us.  We 
have  here  an  extremely 

F.G.77.-ARCHA.C  Female  Figure  from  rude  attempt  to  repre- 
Delos.  Athens,  National  Museum.  sent  a draped  female 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 129 


form.  The  figure  stands  stiffly  erect,  the  feet  close 
together,  the  arms  hanging  straight  down,  the  face 
looking  directly  forward.  The  garment  envelops  the 
body  like  a close-fitting  sheath,  without  a suggestion  of 
folds.  The  trunk  of  the  body  is  flat  or  nearly  so  at  the 
back,  while  in  front  the  prominence  of  the  breasts  is 
suggested  by  the  simple  device  of  two  planes,  an  upper 
and  a lower,  meeting  at  an  angle.  The  shapeless  arms 
were  not  detached  from  the  sides,  except  just  at  the 
waist.  Below  the  girdle  the  body  is  bounded  by  parallel 
planes  in  front  and  behind  and  is  rounded  off  at  the 
sides.  A short  projection  at  the  bottom,  slightly 
rounded  and  partly  divided,  does  duty  for  the  feet.  The 
features  of  the  face  are  too  much  battered  to  be  com- 
mented upon.  The  most  of  the  hair  falls  in  a rough  mass 
upon  the  back,  but  on  either  side  a bunch,  divided  by 
grooves  into  four  locks,  detaches  itself  and  is  brought 
forward  upon  the  breast.  This  primitive  image  is  not  an 
isolated  specimen  of  its  type.  Several  similar  figures  or 
fragments  of  figures  have  been  found  on  the  island  of 
Delos,  in  Bceotia,  and  elsewhere.  A small  statuette  of 
this  type,  found  at  Olympia,  but  probably  produced  at 
Sparta,  has  its  ugly  face  tolerably  preserved. 

Another  series  of  figures,  much  more  numerously  rep- 
resented, gives  us  the  corresponding  type  of  male  figure. 
One  of  the  earliest  examples  of  this  series  is  shown  in 
Fig.  78,  a life-sized  statue  of  Naxian  marble,  found  on 
the  island  of  Thera  in  1836.  The  figure  is  completely 
nude.  The  attitude  is  like  that  of  the  female  type  just 
described,  except  that  the  left  foot  is  advanced.  Other 
statues,  agreeing  with  this  one  in  attitude,  but  showing 
various  stages  of  development,  have  been  found  in  many 
places,  from  Samos  on  the  east  to  Actium  on  the  west. 
Several  features  of  this  class  of  figures  have  been  thought 


130 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


to  betray  Egyptian  influence.* 


Fig.  78- 


“ Apollo  ” of  Thera.  Athens, 
National  Museum. 


of  the  Nile.  Here 


The  rigid  position 
might  be  adopted 
independently  by 
primitive  sculpture 
anywhere.  But  the 
fact  that  the  left  leg 
is  i n v a riably  ad- 
vanced, the  narrow- 
ness of  the  hips,  and 
the  too  high  po- 
sition freq  u e n 1 1 y 
given  to  the  ears — 
did  this  group  of 
coincidences  with 
the  ste reotyped 
Egyptian  standing 
figures  come  about 
without  imitation  ? 
There  is  no  histor- 
ical difficulty  in  the 
way  of  assuming 
Egyptian  influence, 
for  as  early  as  the 
seventh  century 
Greeks  certainly 
visited  Egypt  and  it 
was  perhaps  in  this 
century  that  the 
Greek  colony  of 
Naucratis  was 
founded  in  the  delta 
was  a chance  for  Greeks  to  see 


* See  Wolters’s  edition  of  Friederichs’s  “ Gipsabgiisse  antiker  Bildwerke,3 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


131 


Egyptian  statues  ; and  besides,  Egyptian  statuettes  may 
have  reached  Greek  shores  in  the  way  of  commerce. 
But  be  the  truth  about  this  question  what  it  may,  the 
early  Greek  sculptors  were  as  far  as  possible  from 
slavishly  imitating  a fixed  prototype.  They  used  their 
own  eyes  and  strove,  each  in  his  own  way,  to  render 
what  they  saw.  This  is  evident,  when  the  different  ex- 
amples of  the  class  of  figures  now  under  discussion  are 
passed  in  review. 

Our  figure  from  Thera  is  hardly  more  than  a first  at- 
tempt. There  is  very  little  of  anatomical  detail,  and 
what  there  is  is  not  correct  ; especially  the  form  and  the 
muscles  of  the  abdomen  are  not  understood.  The 
head  presents  a number  of  characteristics  which  were 
destined  long  to  persist  in  Greek  sculpture.  Such  are 
the  protuberant  eyeballs,  the  prominent  cheek-bones, 
the  square,  protruding  chin.  Such,  too,  is  the  forma- 
tion of  the  mouth,  with  its  slightly  upturned  corners — a 
feature  almost,  though  not  quite,  universal  in  Greek 
faces  for  more  than  a century.  This  is  the  sculptor’s 
childlike  way  of  imparting  a look  of  cheerfulness  to  the 
countenance,  and  with  it  often  goes  an  upward  slant  of 
the  eyes  from  the  inner  to  the  outer  corners.  In  repre- 
senting this  youth  as  wearing  long  hair,  the  sculptor  fol- 
lowed the  actual  fashion  of  the  times,  a fashion  not 
abandoned  till  the  fifth  century  and  in  Sparta  not  till 
later.  The  appearance  of  the  hair  over  the  forehead 
and  temples  should  be  noticed.  It  is  arranged  sym- 
metrically in  flat  spiral  curls,  five  curls  on  each  side. 
Symmetry  in  the  disposition  of  the  front  hair  is  constant 
in  early  Greek  sculpture,  and  some  scheme  or  other  of 
spiral  curls  is  extremely  common. 

It  was  at  one  time  thought  that  these  nude  standing 
figures  all  represented  Apollo.  It  is  now  certain  that 


132 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Apollo  was  sometimes  intended,  but  equally  certain  that 
the  same  type  was  used  for  men.  Greek  sculpture  had 
not  yet  learned  to  differentiate  divine  from  human 

beings. 

The  so-called  “Apollo”  of 
Tenea  (Fig.  79),  probably 
in  reality  a grave-statue 
representing  the  deceased, 
was  found  on  the  site  of  the 
ancient  Tenea,  a village  in 
the  territory  of  Corinth.  It 
is  unusually  well  preserved, 
there  being  nothing  missing 
except  the  middle  portion 
of  the  right  arm,  which  has 
been  restored.  This  figure 
shows  great  improvement 
over  his  fellow  from  Thera. 
The  rigid  attitude,  to  be  sure, 
is  preserved  unchanged, 
save  for  a slight  bending  of 
the  arms  at  the  elbows  ; and 
we  meet  again  the  promi- 
nent eyes,  cheek-bones,  and 
chin,  and  the  smiling  mouth. 
But  the  arms  are  much  more 
detached  from  the  sides  and 
the  modeling  of  the  figure 
generally  is  much  more  de- 
tailed. There  are  still  faults  in  plenty,  but  some  parts 
are  rendered  very  well,  particularly  the  lower  legs  and 
feet,  and  the  figure  seems  alive.  The  position  of  the 
feet,  flat  upon  the  ground  and  parallel  to  one  another, 
shows  us  how  to  complete  in  imagination  the  “Apollo” 


Fig.  79.— “Apollo”  of  Tenea. 
Munich. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 133 


of  Thera  and  other  mutilated  members  of  the  series. 

Greek  sculpture  even  in  its  earliest  period  could  not 
limit  itself  to  single  standing  figures.  The  desire  to 
adorn  the  pediments  of  temples  and  temple-like  build- 
ings gave  rise  to  more  complex  compositions.  The 
earliest  pediment-sculptures  known  were  found  on  the 
Acropolis  of  Athens  in  the  excavations  of  1885-90  (see 
page  147).  The  most  primitive  of  these  is  a low  relief 


Fig.  80.— Archaic  Pediment-Figures.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 

of  soft  poros  (see  page  78),  representing  Heracles 
slaying  the  many-headed  hydra.  Somewhat  later,  but 
still  very  rude,  is  the  group  shown  in  Fig.  80, 
which  once  occupied  the  right-hand  half  of  a pediment. 
The  material  here  is  a harder  sort  of  poros , and  the 
figures  are  practically  in  the  round,  though  on  account 
of  the  connection  with  the  background  the  work  has 
to  be  classed  as  high  relief.  We  see  a triple  mon- 
ster, or  rather  three  monsters,  with  human  heads  and 
trunks  and  arms  the  human  bodies  passing  into  long 


134 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


snaky  bodies  coiled  together.  A single  pair  of  wings 
was  divided  between  the  two  outermost  of  the  three 
beings,  while  snakes’  heads,  growing  out  of  the  human 

bodies,  rendered  the 
aspect  of  the  group 
still  more  porten- 
tous. The  center 
of  the  pediment  was 
probably  occupied 
by  a figure  of  Zeus, 
hurling  his  thunder- 
bolt at  this  strange 
enemy.  We  have 
therefore  here  a 
scene  from  one  of 
the  favorite  subjects 
of  Greek  art  at  all 
periods — the  gigan- 
tomachy , or  battle 
of  gods  and  giants. 
Fig.  8 1 gives  a bet- 
ter idea  of  the  near- 
est of  the  three 
heads.*  It  was 
completely  covered  with  a crust  of  paint,  still  pretty  well 
preserved.  The  flesh  was  red  ; the  hair,  moustache, 
and  beard,  blue  ; the  irises  of  the  eyes,  green  ; the  eye- 
brows, edges  of  the  eyelids,  and  pupils,  black.  A con- 
siderable quantity  of  early  poros  sculptures  was  found 
on  the  Athenian  Acropolis.  These  were  all  liberally 
painted.  The  poor  quality  of  the  material  was  thus 
largely  or  wholly  concealed. 


Fig.  8i. — Head  Belonging  to  an  Archaic 
Pediment-Group.  Athens,  Acro- 
polis Museum. 


* It  is  doubtful  whether  this  head  belongs  where  it  is  placed  in  Fig.  8o,  or  in 
another  pediment-group,  of  which  fragments  have  been  found, 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 135 


Fig.  82  shows  another  Athenian  work,  found  on  the 
Acropolis  in  1864-65.  It  is  of  marble  and  is  obviously 
of  later  date  than  the  poros  sculptures.  In  1887  the 
pedestal  of  this 
statue  was  found, 
with  a part  of  the 
right  foot.  An 
inscription  on 
the  pedestal 
shows  that  the 
statue  was  dedi- 
cated to  so m e 
divinity,  doubt- 
less Athena, 
whose  precinct 
the  Acropolis 
was.  The  figure 
then  probably 
represents  the 
dedicator,  bring- 
ing a calf  for 
sacrifice.  The 
position  of  the 
body  and  legs  is 
here  the  same  as 
in  the  “Apollo  ” 
figures,  but  the 
subject  has  com- 
pelled the  sculp- 
tor to  varv  the  Fig.  82.— Male  Figure  Carrying  a Calf. 
y Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 

position  of  the 

arms.  Another  difference  from  the  “Apollo”  figures 
lies  in  the  fact  that  this  statue  is  not  wholly  naked. 
The  garment,  however,  is  hard  to  make  out,  for  it  clings 


136 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


closely  to  the  person  of  the  wearer  and  betrays  its  exist- 
ence only  along  the  edges.  The  sculptor  had  not  yet 
learned  to  represent  the  folds  of  drapery. 

The  British  Museum  possesses  a series  of  ten  seated 
figures  of  Parian  marble,  which  were  once  ranged  along 
the  approach  to  an  important  temple  of  Apollo  near  Mi- 
letus. Fig.  83  shows  three  of  these.  They  are  placed 
in  their  assumed  chronological  order,  the  earliest 
furthest  off.  Only  the  first  two  belong  in  the  period 
now  under  review.  The  figures  are  heavy  and  lumpish, 
and  are  enveloped,  men  and  women  alike,  in  draperies, 
which  leave  only  the  heads,  the  fore-arms,  and  the  toes 


Fig.  83. — Seated  Figures  from  Miletus.  London,  British  Museum. 
(From  Overbeck,  “ Geschichte  der  griechischen  Plastik,”  Vol.  I.,  Fig.  8.) 

exposed.  It  is  interesting  to  see  the  successive  sculptors 
attacking  the  problem  of  rendering  the  folds  of  loose 
garments.  Not  until  we  reach  the  latest  of  the  three 
statues  do  we  find  any  depth  given  to  the  folds  ; and 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  137 


that  figure  belongs  distinctly  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
archaic  period. 


Fig.  84. — Metope  from  Selinus.  Palermo. 

Transporting  ourselves  now  from  the  eastern  to  the 
western  confines  of  Greek  civilization,  we  may  take  a 


138 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


look  at  a sculptured  metope  from  Selinus  in  Sicily  (Fig. 
84).  That  city  was  founded,  according  to  our  best 
ancient  authority,  about  the  year  629  B.C.,  and  the 
temple  from  which  our  metope  is  taken  is  certainly  one 
of  the  oldest,  if  not  the  oldest,  of  the  many  temples  of 
the  place.  The  material  of  the  metope,  as  of  the  whole 
temple,  is  a local  poros , and  the  work  is  executed  in 
high  relief.  The  subject  is  Perseus  cutting  off  the  head 
of  Medusa.  The  Gorgon  is  trying  to  run  away — the 
position  given  to  her  legs  is  used  in  early  Greek  sculp- 
ture and  vase-painting  to  signify  rapid  motion — but  is 
overtaken  by  her  pursuer.  From  the  blood  of  Medusa 
sprang,  according  to  the  legend,  the  winged  horse, 
Pegasus  ; and  the  artist,  wishing  to  tell  as  much  of 
the  story  as  possible,  has  introduced  Pegasus  into  his 
composition,  but  has  been  forced  to  reduce  him  to  mini- 
ature size.  The  goddess  Athena,  the  protectress  of 
Perseus,  occupies  what  remains  of  the  field.  There  is 
no  need  of  dwelling  in  words  on  the  ugliness  of  this 
relief,  an  ugliness  only  in  part  accounted  for  by  the 
subject.  The  student  should  note  that  the  body  of  each 
of  the  three  figures  is  seen  from  the  front,  while  the  legs 
are  in  profile.  The  same  distortion  occurs  in  a second 
metope  of  this  same  temple,  representing  Heracles  carry- 
ing off  two  prankish  dwarfs  who  had  tried  to  annoy 
him,  and  is  in  fact  common  in  early  Greek  work.  We 
have  met  something  similar  in  Egyptian  reliefs  and 
paintings  {cf.  page  33),  but  this  method  of  representing 
the  human  form  is  so  natural  to  primitive  art  that  we 
need  not  here  assume  Egyptian  influence.  The  gar- 
ments of  Perseus  and  Athena  show  so  much  progress  in 
the  representation  of  folds  that  one  scruples  to  put  this 
temple  back  into  the  seventh  century,  as  some  would 
have  us  do.  Like  the  poros  sculptures  of  Attica,  these 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  139 


Selinus  metopes  seem  to  have  been  covered  with  color. 

Fig.  85  takes  us  back  again  to  the  island  of  Delos, 
where  the  statue  came  to  light  in  1877.  It  is  of  Parian 
marble,  and  is  considerably  less  than  life-sized.  A 
female  figure  is  here 
represented,  the 
body  unnaturally 
twisted  at  the  hips, 
as  in  the  Selinus 
metopes,  the  legs 
bent  in  the  attitude 
of  rapid  motion.  At 
the  back  there  were 
wings,  of  which  only 
the  stumps  now  re- 
main. A compari- 
son of  this  statue 
with  similar  figures 
from  the  Athenian 
Acropolis  has  shown 
that  the  feet  did  not 
touch  the  pedestal, 
the  drapery  serving 
as  a support.  The 
intention  of  the 
artist,  then,  was  to 
represent  a flying 
figure,  probably  a 
Victory.  The  god- 
dess is  dressed  in  a Fig.  85.— Archaic  Victory  (?),  FROM  Delos. 

Athens,  National  Museum. 

chiton  (shift),  which 

shows  no  trace  of  folds  above  the  girdle,  while  below 
the  girdle,  between  the  legs,  there  is  a series  of  flat, 
shallow  ridges.  The  face  shows  the  usual  archaic  fea- 


140 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


tures — the  prominent  eyeballs,  cheeks,  and  chin,  and 
the  smiling  mouth.  The  hair  is  represented  as  fastened 
by  a sort  of  hoop,  into  which  metallic  ornaments,  now 
lost,  were  inserted.  As  usual,  the  main  mass  of  the  hair 
falls  straight  behind,  and  several  locks,  the  same  num- 
ber on  each  side,  are  brought  forward  upon  the  breast. 
As  usual,  too,  the  front  hair  is  disposed  symmetrically  ; 
in  this  case,  a smaller  and  a larger  flat  curl  on  each  side 
of  the  middle  of  the  forehead  are  succeeded  by  a contin- 
uous tress  of  hair  arranged  in  five  scallops. 

If,  as  has  been  generally  thought,  this  statue  belongs 
on  an  inscribed  pedestal  which  was  found  near  it,  then 
we  have  before  us  the  work  of  one  Archermus  of  Chios, 
known  to  us  from  literary  tradition  as  the  first  sculptor 
to  represent  Victory  with  wings.  At  all  events,  this,  if  a 
Victory,  is  the  earliest  that  we  know.  She  awakens  our 
interest,  less  for  what  she  is  in  herself  than  because  she 
is  the  forerunner  of  the  magnificent  Victories  of  de- 
veloped Greek  art. 

Thus  far  we  have  not  met  a single  work  to  which  it  is 
possible  to  assign  a precise  date.  We  have  now  the 
satisfaction  of  finding  a chronological  landmark  in  our 
path.  This  is  afforded  by  some  fragments  of  sculpture 
belonging  to  the  old  Temple  of  Artemis  at  Ephesus. 
The  date  of  this  temple  is  approximately  fixed  by  the 
statement  of  Herodotus  (I.,  92)  that  most  of  its 
columns  were  presented  by  Croesus,  king  of  Lydia, 
whose  reign  lasted  from  560  to  546  B.  C.  In  the 
course  of  the  excavations  carried  on  for  the  British 
Museum  upon  the  site  of  Ephesus  there  were  brought 
to  light,  in  1872  and  1874,  a few  fragments  of  this  sixth 
century  edifice.  Even  some  letters  of  Croesus’s  dedica- 
tory inscription  have  been  found  on  the  bases  of  the 
Ionic  columns,  affording  a welcome  confirmation  to  the 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 141 


testimony  of  Herodotus.  It  appears  that  the  columns, 
or  some  of  them,  were  treated  in  a very  exceptional 
fashion,  the  low- 
est drums  being 
adorned  with  re- 
lief-sculp  tu  re. 

The  British  Mu- 
seum authorities 
have  partially  re- 
stored one  such 
drum  (Fig.  86), 
though  without 
guaran  teeing 
that  the  pieces  of 
sculpture  here 
combined  act- 
ually belong  to 
the  same  column. 

The  male  figure 
is  not  very  pre- 
possessing, but 
that  is  partly  due 
to  the  battered 
condition  of  the 
face.  Much  more 
attractive  is  the 
female  head,  of 
which  unfortu- 
nately only  the 
back  is  seen  in 

OUr  illustration.  Fig.86. — Lower  Part  of  Archaic  Sculptured  Col- 
j , umn  from  Ephesus.  London,  British  Museum. 

It  bears  a Strong  (From  Overbeck,  “ Geschichte  der  griechischen 

family  likeness  to  Piastik,”  Voi.  1.,  Big.  9.) 

the  head  of  the  Victory  of  Delos,  but  shows  marked  im- 


I42 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


provement  over  that.  Some  bits  of  a sculptured  cornice 
belonging  to  the  same  temple  are  also  refined  in  style. 
In  this  group  of  reliefs,  fragmentary  though  they  are, 
we  have  an  indication  of  the  development  attained  by 
Ionic  sculptors  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century. 
For,  of  course,  though  Croesus  paid  for  the  columns, 
the  work  was  executed  by  Greek  artists  upon  the  spot, 
and  presumably  by  the  best  artists  that  could  be  secured. 
We  may  therefore  use  these  sculptures  as  a standard  by 
which  to  date  other  works,  whose  date  is  not  fixed  for 
us  by  external  evidence. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  ARCHAIC  PERIOD  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 

SECOND  HALF  : 550-480  B.  C. 

Greek  sculpture  now  enters  upon  a stage  of  develop- 
ment which  possesses  for  the  modern  student  a singular 
and  potent  charm.  True,  many  traces  still  remain  of 
the  sculptor’s  imperfect  mastery.  He  cannot  pose  his 
figures  in  perfectly  easy  attitudes,  not  even  in  reliefs, 
where  the  problem  is  easier  than  in  sculpture  in  the 
round.  His  knowledge  of  human  anatomy — that  is  to 
say,  of  the  outward  appearance  of  the  human  body, 
which  is  all  the  artistic  anatomy  that  any  one  attempted 
to  know  during  the  rise  and  the  great  age  of  Greek 
sculpture — is  still  defective,  and  his  means  of  expression 
are  still  imperfect.  For  example,  in  the  nude  male 
figure  the  hips  continue  to  be  too  narrow  for  the 
shoulders,  and  the  abdomen  too  flat.  The  facial  peculi- 
arities mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter — prominent 
eyeballs,  cheeks,  and  chin,  and  smiling  mouth — are 
only  very  gradually  modified.  As  from  the  first,  the 
upper  eyelid  does  not  overlap  the  lower  eyelid  at  the 
outer  corner,  as  truth,  or  rather  appearance,  requires  ; 
and  in  relief-sculpture  the  eye  of  a face  in  profile  is 
rendered  as  in  front  view.  The  texture  and  arrange- 
ment of  hair  are  expressed  in  various  ways,  but  always 
with  a marked  love  of  symmetry  and  formalism.  In 
the  difficult  art  of  representing  drapery  there  is  much 
experimentation  and  great  progress.  It  seems  to  have 
been  among  the  eastern  Ionians,  perhaps  at  Chios,  that 


143 


144 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


the  deep  cutting  of  folds  was  first  practiced,  and  from 
Ionia  this  method  of  treatment  spread  to  Athens  and 
elsewhere.  When  drapery  is  used,  there  is  a manifest 
desire  on  the  sculptor’s  part  to  reveal  what  he  can, 
more,  in  fact,  than  in  reality  could  appear,  of  the  form 
underneath.  The  garments  fall  in  formal  folds,  some- 
times of  great  elaboration.  They  look  as  if  they  were 
intended  to  represent  garments  of  irregular  cut,  care- 
fully starched  and  ironed.  But  one  must  be  cautious 
about  drawing  inferences  from  an  imperfect  artistic 
manner  as  to  the  actual  fashions  of  the  day. 

But  whatever  shortcomings  in  technical  perfection 
may  be  laid  to  their  charge,  the  works  of  this  period 
are  full  of  the  indefinable  fascination  of  promise.  They 
are  marked,  moreover,  by  a simplicity  and  sincerity  of 
purpose,  an  absence  of  all  ostentation,  a conscientious 
and  loving  devotion  on  the  part  of  those  who  made 
them.  And  in  many  of  them  we  are  touched  by  great 
refinement  and  tenderness  of  feeling,  and  a peculiarly 
Greek  grace  of  line. 

To  illustrate  these  remarks  we  may  turn  first  to 
Lycia,  in  southwestern  Asia  Minor.  The  so-called 
“ Harpy  ” tomb  was  a huge,  four-sided  pillar  of  stone, 
in  the  upper  part  of  which  a square  burial-chamber  was 
hollowed  out.  Marble  bas-reliefs  adorned  the  exterior 
of  this  chamber.  The  best  of  the  four  slabs  is  seen  in 
Fig.  87.*  At  the  right  is  a seated  female  figure,  divin- 
ity or  deceased  woman,  who  holds  in  her  right  hand  a 
pomegranate  flower  and  in  her  left  a pomegranate  fruit. 
To  her  approach  three  women,  the  first  raising  the 
lower  part  of  her  chiton  with  her  right  hand  and  draw- 
ing forward  her  outer  garment  with  her  left,  the  second 
bringing  a fruit  and  a flower,  the  third  holding  an  egg 


* Our  illustration  is  not  quite  complete  on  the  right. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  145 


in  her  right  hand  and  raising  her  chiton  with  her  left. 
Then  comes  the  opening  into  the  burial-chamber,  sur- 
mounted by  a diminutive  cow  suckling  her  calf.  At 
the  left  is  another  seated  female  figure,  holding  a bowl 
for  libation.  The  exact  significance  of  this  scene  is  un- 
known, and  we  may  limit  our  attention  to  its  artistic 
qualities.  We  have  here  our  first  opportunity  of 
observing  the  principle  of  isocephaly  in  Greek  relief- 
sculpture  ; i.  e. , the  convention  whereby  the  heads  of 


Fig.  87. — Relief  from  the  “ Harpy”  Tomb.  London,  British  Museum. 


figures  in  an  extended  composition  are  ranged  on 
nearly  the  same  level,  no  matter  whether  the  figures  are 
seated,  standing,  mounted  on  horseback,  or  placed  in 
any  other  position.  The  main  purpose  of  this  conven- 
tion doubtless  was  to  avoid  the  unpleasing  blank  spaces 
which  would  result  if  the  figures  were  all  of  the  same 
proportions.  In  the  present  instance  there  may  be  the . 
further  desire  to  suggest  by  the  greater  size  of  the 
seated  figures  their  greater  dignity  as  goddesses  or 
divinized  human  beings.  Note,  again,  how,  in  the  case 
of  each  standing  woman,  the  garments  adhere  to  the 
body  behind.  The  sculptor  here  sacrifices  truth  for  the 
sake  of  showing  the  outline  of  the  figure.  Finally, 


146 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Fig.  88. — Grave-Monument  of  Aris- 
tiqn.  Athens,  National  Museum. 


remark  the  daintiness 
with  which  the  hands  are 
used,  particularly  in  the 
case  of  the  seated  figure 
on  the  right.  The  date 
of  this  work  may  be  put 
not  much  later  than  the 
middle  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, and  the  style  is  that 
of  the  Ionian  school. 

Under  the  tyrant  Pisis- 
tratus  and  his  sons  Athens 
attained  to  an  importance 
in  the  world  of  art  which 
it  had  not  enjoyed  before. 
A fine  Attic  work,  which 
we  may  probably  attribute 
to  the  time  of  Pisistratus, 
is  the  grave-monument  of 
Aristion  (Fig.  88).  The 
material  is  Pentelic  mar- 
ble. The  form  of  the 
monument,  a tall,  narrow, 
slightly  tapering  slab  or 
stel£,  is  the  usual  one  in 
Attica  in  this  period.  The 
man  represented  in  low 
relief  is,  of  course,  Aris- 
tion himself.  He  had 
probably  fallen  in  battle, 
and  so  is  put  before  us 
armed.  Over  a short 
chiton  he  wears  a leather 
cuirass  with  a double 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  147 


row  of  flaps  below  ; on  his  head  is  a small  helmet, 
which  leaves  his  face  entirely  exposed  ; on  his  legs  are 
greaves  ; and  in  his  left  hand  he  holds  a spear.  There 
is  some  constraint  in  the  position  of  the  left  arm  and 
hand,  due  to  the  limitations  of  space.  In  general,  the 
anatomy,  so  far  as  exhibited,  is  creditable,  though  fault 
might  be  found  with  the  shape  of  the  thighs.  The 
hair,  much  shorter  than  is  usual  in  the  archaic  period,  is 
arranged  in  careful  curls.  The  beard,  trimmed  to  a 
point  in  front,  is  rendered  by  parallel  grooves.  The 
chiton,  where  it  shows  from  under  the  cuirass,  is 
arranged  in  symmetrical  plaits.  There  are  considerable 
traces  of  color  on  the  relief,  as  well  as  on  the  back- 
ground. Some  of  these  may  be  seen  in  our  illustration 
on  the  cuirass. 

Our  knowledge  of  early  Attic  sculpture  has  been  im- 
mensely increased  by  the  thorough  exploration  of  the 
summit  of  the  Athenian  Acropolis  in  1885-90.  In 
regard  to  these  important  excavations  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  in  480  and  again  in  479  the  Acropolis 
was  occupied  by  Persians  belonging  to  Xerxes’  invad- 
ing army,  who  reduced  the  buildings  and  sculptures 
on  that  site  to  a heap  of  fire-blackened  ruins.  This 
debris  was  used  by  the  Athenians  in  the  generation 
immediately  following  toward  raising  the  general  level 
of  the  summit  of  the  Acropolis.  All  this  material,  after 
having  been  buried  for  some  twenty-three  and  a half 
centuries,  has  now  been  recovered.  In  the  light  of  the 
newly  found  remains,  which  include  numerous  inscribed 
pedestals,  it  is  seen  that  under  the  rule  of  Pisistratus 
and  his  sons  Athens  attracted  to  itself  talented  sculptors 
from  other  Greek  communities,  notably  from  Chios  and 
Ionia  generally.  It  is  to  Ionian  sculptors  and  to  Athen- 
ian sculptors  brought  under  Ionian  influences  that 


148  A History  of  Greek  Art . 


we  must  attribute 
almost  all  those 
standing  female 
figures  which 
form  the  chief  part 
of  the  new  treas- 
ures of  the  Acropo- 
lis Museum. 

The  figures  of 
this  type  stand 
with  the  left  foot, 
as  a rule,  a little 
advanced,  the 
body  and  head 
facing  directly  for- 
ward with  primi- 
tive stiffness.  But 
the  arms  no  longer 
hang  straight  at 
the  sides,  one  of 
them,  regularly 
the  right,  being 
extended  from  the 
elbow,  while  the 
other  holds  up  the 
voluminous  drap- 
ery. Many  of  the 
statues  retain  co- 
pious  traces  of 
color  on  hair,  eye- 
brows, eyes,  drap- 
eries, and  ornaments ; in  no  case  does  the  flesh  give  any 
evidence  of  having  been  painted  ( cf.  page  119).  Fig.  89 
is  taken  from  an  illustration  which  gives  the  color  as  it 


Fig.  89.— Archaic  Female  Figure. 
Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 

(From  the  Antike  Denkmaler , I.,  PI.  XIX.) 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 149 


was  when  the  statue  was  first  found,  before  it  had  suf- 
fered from  exposure. 

Fig.  90  is  not  in 
itself  one  of  the 
most  pleasing  of  the 
series,  but  it  has  a 
special  interest,  not 
merely  on  account 
of  its  exceptionally 
large  size — it  is  over 
six  and  a half  feet 
high — but  because 
we  probably  know 
the  name  and  some- 
thing more  of  its 
sculptor.  If,  as 
seems  altogether 
likely,  the  statue  be- 
longs upon  the  in- 
scribed pedestal 
upon  which  it  is 
placed  in  the  illus- 
t r a t i o n , then  we 
have  before  us  an 
original  work  of  that 
Antenor  who  was 
commissioned  by 
the  Athenian  peo- 
ple, soon  after  the 
expulsion  of  the 
tyrant  Hippias  and 
his  family  in  510,  to  make  a group  in  bronze  of  Har- 
modius  and  Aristogiton  (cf  pages  160-4).  This  statue 
might,  of  course,  be  one  of  his  earlier  productions. 


Fig.  90.— Statue  by  Antenor  (?).  Athens, 
Acropolis  Museum.  (From  the  Antike 
Denkmaler , I.,  PI.  LI II.) 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


150 


At  first  sight  these  figures  strike  many  untrained  ob- 
servers as  simply  grotesque.  Some  of  them  are  indeed 

odd;  Fig.  91  reproduces  one 
which  is  especially  so.  But 
they  soon  become  absorb- 
ingly interesting  and  then 
delightful.  The  strange- 
looking,  puzzling  gar- 
ments,* which  cling  to  the 
figure  behind  and  fall  in 
formal  folds  in  front,  the 
elaborately,  often  impossi- 
bly, arranged  hair,  the 
gracious  countenances,  a 
certain  quaintness  and  re- 
finement and  unconscious- 
ness of  self — these  things 
exercise  over  us  an  endless 
fascination. 

Who  are  these  mysterious 
beings?  We  do  not  know. 
There  are  those  who  would 
see  in  them,  or  in  some  of 
them,  representations  of 
Athena,  who  was  not  only  a 
martial  goddess,  but  also 

Fig.  91. — Archaic  Female  Figure,  patroness  of  Spinning  and 
Athens,  Acropolis  Museum.  weaving  and  all  Cunning 

handiwork.  To  others,  including  the  writer,  they  seem, 
in  their  manifold  variety,  to  be  daughters  of  Athens. 


* Fig.  91  wears  only  one  garment,  the  Ionic  chiton,  a long  linen  shift,  girded 
at  the  waist  and  pulled  up  so  as  to  fall  over  and  conceal  the  girdle.  Figs.  89, 
90,  92,  93  wear  over  this  a second  garment,  which  goes  over  the  right  shoulder 
and  under  the  left.  This  over-garment  reaches  to  the  feet,  so  as  to  conceal 
the  lower  portion  of  the  chiton.  At  the  top  it  is  folded  over,  or  perhaps  rather 
another  piece  of  cloth  is  sewed  on.  This  over-fold,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  ap- 
pears as  if  cut  with  two  or  more  long  points  below. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 15 1 


But,  if  so,  what  especial  claim  these  women  had  to  be  set 
up  in  effigy  upon  Athena’s  holy  hill  is  an  unsolved 
riddle. 

Before  parting  from  their  company  we  must  not  fail  to 
look  at  two  fragmentary  figures  (Figs.  94,  95),  the  most 
advanced  in  style  of  the  whole  series  and  doubtless  ex- 
ecuted shortly  be- 
fore 480.  In  the 
former,  presumably 
the  earlier  of  the 
two,  the  marvelous 
arrangement  of  the 
hair  over  the  fore- 
head survives  and 
the  eyeballs  still 
protrude  unpleas- 
antly. But  the 
mouth  has  lost  the 
conventional  smile 
and  the  modeling  of 
the  face  is  of  great 
beauty.  In  the 
other,  alone  of  the 
series,  the  hair  pre- 
sents a fairly  natural 
appearance,  the 
eyeballs  lie  at  their 
proper  depth,  and 
the  beautiful  curve 
of  the  neck  is  not  masked  by  the  locks  that  fall  upon 
the  breasts.  In  this  head,  too,  the  mouth  actually 
droops  at  the  corners,  giving  a perhaps  unintended  look 
of  seriousness  to  the  face.  The  ear,  though  set  rather 
high,  is  exquisitely  shaped. 


Fig.  92.— Upper  Part  of  Archaic  Female 
Figure.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 


152  A History  of  Greek  Art. 


Still  more  lovely  than  this  lady  is  the  youth’s  head 
shown  in  Fig.  96.  Fate  has 
robbed  us  of  the  body  to 
which  it  belonged,  but  the 
head  itself  is  in  an  excellent 
state  of  preservation.  The 
face  is  one  of  singular  purity 
and  sweetness.  The  hair, 
once  of  a golden  tint,  is  long 
behind  and  is  gathered  into 
two  braids,  which  start  from 
just  behind  the  ears,  cross 
one  another,  and  are  fas- 
tened together  in  front  ; the 
short  front  hair  is  combed 
forward  and  conceals  the 
ends  of  the  braids  ; and  there 
is  a mysterious  puff  in  front 
of  each  ear.  In  the  whole 
work,  so  far  at  least  as  ap- 
pears in  a profile  view,  there 
is  nothing  to  mar  our  pleas- 
ure. The  sculptor’s  hand 
has  responded  cunningly  to 
his  beautiful  thought. 

It  is  a pity  not  to  be  able 
to  illustrate  another  group 
of  Attic  sculptures  of  the  late 
archaic  period,  the  most 
recent  addition  to  our 
store.  The  metopes  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  Athenians  at 
Delphi,  discovered  during 
the  excavations  now  in  progress,  are  of  extraordinary 


Fig.  93. — Archaic  Female  Figure 
Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  153 


interest  and  importance  ; but  only  two  or  three  of  them 
have  yet  been  published,  and  these  in  a form  not  suited 
for  reproduction.  The  same  is  the  case  with  another  of 
the  recent  finds  at 
Delphi,  the  sculp- 
tured frieze  of  the 
Treasury  of  the 
Cnidians,  already 
famous  among  pro- 
fessional students 
and  destined  to  be 
known  and  admired 
by  a wider  public. 

Here,  however,  it  is 
possible  to  submit  a 
single  fragment, 
which  was  found 
years  ago  (Fig.  97). 

It  represents  a four- 
horse  chariot  ap- 
proaching an  altar. 

The  newly  found  Fig.  94.— Fragment  of  Archaic  Female 

. f . . P . Figure.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 

pieces  01  this  frieze 

have  abundant  remains  of  color.  The  work  probably 
belongs  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  sixth  century. 

The  pediment-figures  from  Higina,  the  chief  treasure 
of  the  Munich  collection  of  ancient  sculpture,  were 
found  in  1811  by  a party  of  scientific  explorers  and  were 
restored  in  Italy  under  the  superintendence  of  the 
Danish  sculptor,  Thorwaldsen.  Until  lately  these 
Higinetan  figures  were  our  only  important  group  of  late 
archaic  Greek  sculptures  ; and,  though  that  is  no  longer 
the  case,  they  still  retain,  and  will  always  retain,  an 
especial  interest  and  significance.  They  once  filled  the 


154 


. A History  of  Greek  Art . 


pediments  of  a Doric  temple  of  Aphaia,  of  which  con- 
siderable remains  are  still  standing.  There  is  no  trust- 
worthy external  clue  to  the  date  of  the  building,  and  we 
are  therefore  obliged  to  depend  for  that  on  the  style  of 
the  architecture  and  sculpture,  especially  the  latter.  In 
the  dearth  of  accurately  dated  monuments  which  might 

serve  as  standards 
of  comparison, 
great  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  point 
has  prevailed.  But 
we  are  now  some- 
what better  off, 
thanks  to  recent 
discoveries  at  Ath- 
ens and  Delphi,  and 
we  shall  probably 
not  go  far  wrong  in 
assigning  the  temple 
with  its  sculptures  to 
about  480  B.  C. 
Fig.  52  illustrates, 
though  somewhat 
incorrectly,  the 
composition  of  the 
western  pediment. 
The  subject  was  a 
combat,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Athena,  be- 
tween Greeks  and 
Asiatics,  probably 
on  the  plain  of  Troy.  A close  parallelism  existed  be- 
tween the  two  halves  of  the  pediment,  each  figure,  except 
the  goddess  and  the  fallen  warrior  at  her  feet,  correspond- 


Fig.  95.— Fragment  of  Archaic  Female 
Figure.  Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  155 


in g to  a similar  figure  on  the  opposite  side.  Athena, 
protectress  of  the  Greeks,  stands  in  the  center  (Fig.  98). 
She  wears  two  garments,  of  which  the  outer  one  (the 
only  one  seen  in  the 
illustration)  is  a 
marvel  of  formal- 
ism. Her  aegis  cov- 
ers her  breasts  and 
hangs  far  down  be- 
hind ; the  points  of 
its  scalloped  edge 
once  bristled  with 
serpents’  heads,  and 
there  was  a Gor- 
gon’s head  in  the 
middle  of  the  front. 

She  has  upon  her 
head  a helmet  with 
lofty  crest,  and  car- 
ries shield  and 
lance.  The  men, 
with  the  exception 
of  the  two  archers, 
are  naked,  and  their 
helmets,  which  are 
of  a form  intended  to  cover  the  face,  are  pushed  back. 
Of  course,  men  did  not  actually  go  into  battle  in  this 
fashion  ; but  the  sculptor  did  not  care  for  realism,  and 
he  did  care  for  the  exhibition  of  the  body.  He  be- 
longed to  a school  which  had  made  an  especially  careful 
study  of  anatomy,  and  his  work  shows  a great  improve- 
ment in  this  respect  over  anything  we  have  yet  had  the 
opportunity  to  consider.  Still,  the  men  are  decidedly 
lean  in  appearance  and  their  angular  attitudes  are  a 


Fig.  96.— Head  of  a Youth,  Athens, 
Acropolis  Museum. 


156  A History  of  Greek  Art . 


of  a distinctly  more  advanced  style.  Only  five  figures 
of  this  group  were  sufficiently  preserved  to  be  restored. 


little  suggestive  of  prepared  skeletons.  They  have 
oblique  and  prominent  eyes,  and,  whether  fighting  or 


Fig.  97.— Fragment  of  Frieze  from  the  Treasury  of  the  Cnidians. 
Delphi. 

dying,  they  wear  upon  their  faces  the  same  conven- 
tional smile. 

The  group  in  the  eastern  pediment  corresponds  closely 
in  subject  and  composition  to  that  in  the  western,  but  is 


Fig.  98. — Figures  from  the  Western  Pediment  of  the  ^Eginetan 
Temple.  Munich. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 157 


Of  these  perhaps  the  most  admirable  is  the  dying  warrior 
from  the  southern  corner  of  the  pediment  (Fig.  99),  in 
which  the  only  considerable  modern  part  is  the  right  leg, 
from  the  middle  of  the  thigh.  The  superiority  of  this 
and  its  companion  figures  to  those  of  the  western  pedi- 
ment lies,  as  the  Munich  catalogue  points  out,  in  the 
juster  proportions  of  body,  arms,  and  legs,  the  greater 
fulness  of  the  muscles,  the  more  careful  attention  to  the 
veins  and  to  the  qualities  of  the  skin,  the  more  natural 
position  of  eyes  and  mouth.  This  dying  man  does  not 


Fig.  99. — Dying  Warrior  from  the  Eastern  Pediment  of  the 
^Eginetan  Temple.  Munich. 


smile  meaninglessly.  His  lips  are  parted,  and  there  is  a 
suggestion  of  death-agony  on  his  countenance.  In  both 
pediments  the  figures  are  carefully  finished  all  round  ; 
there  is  no  neglect,  or  none  worth  mentioning,  of  those 
parts  which  were  destined  to  be  invisible  so  long  as 
the  figures  were  in  position. 

The  Strangford  “Apollo”  (Fig.  100)  is  of  uncertain 
provenience,  but  is  nearly  related  in  style  to  the  marbles 
of  AEgina.  This  statue,  by  the  position  of  body,  legs, 
and  head,  belongs  to  the  series  of  “ Apollo”  figures 


158  A History  of  Greek  Art. 


discussed  above 
(pages  129-32)  ; 
but  the  arms  were 
no  longer  attached 
to  the  sides,  and 
were  probably  bent 
at  the  elbows.  The 
most  obvious  traces 
of  a lingering  ar- 
chaism, besides  the 
rigidity  of  the  atti- 
tude, are  the  nar- 
rowness of  the  hips 
and  the  formal  ar- 
rangement of  the 
hair,  with  its  double 
row  of  snail-shell 
curls.  The  statue 
has  been  spoken  of 
by  a high  authority* 
as  showing  only  ‘ ‘ a 
meager  and  painful 
rendering  of  na- 
ture.’J That  is  one 
way  of  looking  at  it. 
But  there  is  an- 
other way,  which 
has  been  finely  ex- 
pressed by  Pater, 
in  an  essay  on 
London,  ‘ ‘ The  Marbles  of 
Aigina’’:  “As  art 

which  has  passed  its  prime  has  sometimes  the  charm  of 

* Newton,  “ Essays  on  Art  and  Archaeology,”  page  81. 


Fig.  1 00.— Strangford  “Apollo. 

British  Museum. 


The  Archaic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 159 


an  absolute  refinement  in  taste  and  workmanship,  so 
immature  art  also,  as  we  now  see,  has  its  own  attractive- 
ness in  the  naivete , the  freshness  of  spirit,  which  finds 
power  and  interest  in  simple  motives  of  feeling,  and  in 
the  freshness  of  hand,  which  has  a sense  of  enjoyment 
in  mechanical  processes  still  performed  unmechanically, 
in  the  spending  of  care  and  intelligence  on  every  touch. 

The  workman  is  at  work  in  dry  earnestness, 
with  a sort  of  hard  strength  of  detail,  a scrupulousness 
verging  on  stiffness,  like  that  of  an  early  Flemish 
painter  ; he  communicates  to  us  his  still  youthful  sense 
of  pleasure  in  the  experience  of  the  first  rudimentary 
difficulties  of  his  art  overcome.”* 


* Pater,  “ Greek  Studies,”  page  285. 


CHAPTER  VII.  t V '\il 


ijji'UAM i 'AlM 


^<r 


vw ' * 4 

v ,(  xttA* 

QM^'.  ^ 


(iic* 


THE  TRANSITIONAL  PERIOD  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 

480-450  B.  C. 

The  term  “ Transitional  period  ” is  rather  meaning- 
less in  itself,  but  has  acquired  considerable  currency  as 
denoting  that  stage  in  the  history  of  Greek  art  in  which 
the  last  steps  were  taken  toward  perfect  freedom  of 
style.  It  is  convenient  to  reckon  this  period  as  extend- 
ing from  the  year  of  the  Persian  invasion  of  Greece 
under  Xerxes  to  the  middle  of  the  century.  In  the 
artistic  as  in  the  political  history  of  this  generation 
Athens  held  a position  of  commanding  importance, 
while  Sparta,  the  political  rival  of  Athens,  was  as 
barren  of  art  as  of  literature.  The  other  principal 
artistic  center  was  Argos,  whose  school  of  sculpture  had 
been  and  was  destined  long  to  be  widely  influential. 
As  for  other  local  schools,  the  question  of  their  centers 
and  mutual  relations  is  too  perplexing  and  uncertain  to 
be  here  discussed. 

In  the  two  preceding  chapters  we  studied  only  origi- 
nal works,  but  from  this  time  on  we  shall  have  to  pay  a 
good  deal  of  attention  to  copies  ((/*.  pages  114-16). 
We  begin  with  two  statues  in  Naples  (Fig.  101).  The 
story  of  this  group — for  the  two  statues  were  designed 
as  a group — is  interesting.  The  two  friends,  Harmodius 
and  Aristogiton,  who  in  514  had  formed  a conspiracy  to 
rid  Athens  of  her  tyrants,  but  who  had  succeeded  only 
in  killing  one  of  them,  came  to  be  regarded  after  the 
expulsion  of  the  remaining  tyrant  and  his  family  in  510 


160 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 161 


as  the  liberators  of  the  city.  Their  statues  in  bronze, 
the  work  of  Antenor,  were  set  up  on  a terrace  above 


Fig.  ioi.— Harmodius  and  Aristogiton.  Naples. 

the  market-place  ( cf.  pages  124,  149).  In  480  this 
group  was  carried  off  to  Persia  by  Xerxes  and  there  it 


162 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


remained  for  a hundred  and  fifty  years  or  more,  when  it 
was  restored  to  Athens  by  Alexander  the  Great  or  one 
of  his  successors.  Athens,  however,  had  as  promptly 
as  possible  repaired  her  loss.  Critius  and  Nesiotes,  two 
sculptors  who  worked  habitually  in  partnership,  were 
commissioned  to  make  a second  group,  and  this  was  set 
up  in  477-6  on  the  same  terrace  where  the  first  had 
been.  After  the  restoration  of  Antenor’s  statues  toward 
the  end  of  the  fourth  century  the  two  groups  stood  side 
by  side. 

It  was  argued  by  a German  archaeologist  more  than  a 
generation  ago  that  the  two  marble  statues  shown  in 
Fig.  101  are  copied  from  one  of  these  bronze  groups, 
and  this  identification  has  been  all  but  universally 
accepted.  The  proof  may  be  stated  briefly,  as  follows  : 
First,  several  Athenian  objects  of  various  dates,  from 
the  fifth  century  B.  C.  onward,  bear  a design  to  which 
the  Naples  statues  clearly  correspond.  One  of  these  is 
a relief  on  a marble  throne,  formerly  in  Athens.  Our 
illustration  of  this  (Fig.  102)  is  taken  from  a “squeeze/’ 
or  wet  paper  impression.  This  must,  then,  have  been 
an  important  group  in  Athens.  Secondly,  the  style  of 
the  Naples  statues  points  to  a bronze  original  of  the  early 
fifth  century.  Thirdly,  the  attitudes  of  the  figures  are 
suitable  for  Harmodius  and  Aristogiton,  and  we  do  not 
know  of  any  other  group  of  that  period  for  which  they 
are  suitable.  This  proof,  though  not  quite  as  complete 
as  we  should  like,  is  as  good  as  we  generally  get  in 
these  matters.  The  only  question  that  remains  in 
serious  doubt  is  whether  our  copies  go  back  to  the  work 
of  Antenor  or  to  that  of  Critius  and  Nesiotes.  Opinions 
have  been  much  divided  on  this  point,  but  the  prevail- 
ing tendency  now  is  to  connect  them  with  the  later 
artists.  That  is  the  view  here  adopted. 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  163 


In  studying  the  two  statues  it  is  important  to  recognize 
the  work  of  the  modern  ‘ ‘ restorer.  ’ ’ The  figure  of 


■ '■ 
- 


WmssSKSB^m 


Fig.  102. — Relief  on  a Marble  Throne. 

Broom  Hall,  near  Dunfermline,  Scotland.  (From  The  Journal  of  Hellenic 
Studies , Vol.  V.,  PI.  XLVIII.) 


Aristogiton  (the  one  on  your  left  as  you  face  the  group) 
having  been  found  in  a headless  condition,  the  restorer 
provided  it  with  a head,  which  is  antique,  to  be  sure, 


164 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


but  which  is  outrageously  out  of  keeping,  being  of  the 
style  of  a century  later.  The  chief  modern  portions  are 
the  left  hand  of  Aristogiton  and  the  arms,  right  leg,  and 
lower  part  of  the  left  leg  of  Harmodius.  As  may  be 
learned  from  the  small  copies,  Aristogiton  should  be 
bearded,  and  the  right  arm  of  Harmodius  should  be  in 
the  act  of  being  raised  to  bring  down  a stroke  of  the 
sword  upon  his  antagonist.  We  have,  then,  to  correct 
in  imagination  the  restorer’s  misdoings,  and  also  to 
omit  the  tree-trunk  supports,  which  the  bronze  originals 
did  not  need.  Further,  the  two  figures  should  probably 
be  advancing  in  the  same  direction,  instead  of  in  con- 
verging lines. 

When  these  changes  are  made,  the  group  cannot  fail 
to  command  our  admiration.  It  would  be  a mistake  to 
fix  our  attention  exclusively  on  the  head  of  Harmodius. 
Seen  in  front  view,  the  face,  with  its  low  forehead  and 
heavy  chin,  looks  dull,  if  not  ignoble.  But  the  bodies  ! 
In  complete  disregard  of  historic  truth,  the  two  men  are 
represented  in  a state  of  ideal  nudity,  like  the  Higinetan 
figures.  The  anatomy  is  carefully  studied,  the  attitudes 
lifelike  and  vigorous.  Finally,  the  composition  is  fairly 
successful.  This  is  the  earliest  example  preserved  to  us 
of  a group  of  sculpture  other  than  a pediment-group. 
The  interlocking  of  the  figures  is  not  yet  so  close  as  it 
was  destined  to  be  in  many  a more  advanced  piece  of 
Greek  statuary.  But  already  the  figures  are  not  merely 
juxtaposed  ; they  share  in  a common  action,  and  each  is 
needed  to  complete  the  other. 

Of  about  the  same  date,  it  would  seem,  or  not  much 
later,  must  have  been  a lost  bronze  statue,  whose  fame  is 
attested  by  the  existence  of  several  marble  copies.  The 
best  of  these  was  found  in  1862,  in  the  course  of  exca- 
vating the  great  theater  on  the  southern  slope  of  the 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 165 


Athenian  Acropolis  (Fig.  103).  The  naming  of  this 
figure  is  doubtful.  It  has  been  commonly  taken  for 
Apollo,  while  another  view  sees  in  it  a pugilist.  Re- 
cently the  suggestion  has  been  thrown  out  that  it  is 
Heracles.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
the  figure  is  a fine  example 
of  youthful  strength  and 
beauty.  In  pose  it  shows  a 
decided  advance  upon  the 
Strangford  “Apollo”  (Fig. 

100).  The  left  leg  is  still 
slightly  advanced,  and  both 
feet  were  planted  flat  on  the 
ground  ; but  more  than  half 
the  weight  of  the  body  is 
thrown  upon  the  right  leg, 
with  the  result  of  giving  a 
slight  curve  to  the  trunk,  and 
the  head  is  turned  to  one 
side.  The  upper  part  of  the 
body  is  very  powerful,  the 
shoulders  broad  and  held 
well  back,  the  chest  promi- 
nently developed.  The  face, 
in  spite  of  its  injuries,  is  one 
of  singular  refinement  and 
sweetness.  The  long  hair 
is  arranged  in  two  braids,  as 
in  Fig.  96,  the  only  difference 
being  that  here  the  braids 
pass  over  instead  of  under  the  fringe  of  front  hair.  The 
rendering  of  the  hair  is  in  a freer  style  than  in  the  case 
just  cited,  but  of  this  difference  a part  may  be  chargeable 
to  the  copyist.  Altogether  we  see  here  the  stamp  of  an 


Fig.  103. — “Apollo  on  the  Ompha 
los.”  Athens,  National  Museum. 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


166 


artistic  manner  very  different  from  that  of  Critius  and 
Nesiotes.  Possibly,  as  some  have  conjectured,  it  is  the 
manner  of  Calamis,  an  Attic  sculptor  of  this  period, 
whose  eminence  at  any  rate  entitles  him  to  a passing 
mention.  But  even  the  Attic  origin  of  this  statue  is  in 
dispute. 

We  now  reach  a name  of  commanding  importance, 
and  one  writh  which  we  are  fortunately  able  to  associate 
some  definite  ideas.  It  is  the  name  of  Myron  of 
Athens,  who  ranks  among  the  six  most  illustrious 
sculptors  of  Greece.  It  is  worth  remarking,  as  an 
illustration  of  the  scantiness  of  our  knowledge  regarding 
the  lives  of  Greek  artists,  that  Myron’s  name  is  not  so 
much  as  mentioned  in  extant  literature  before  the  third 
century  B.  C.  Except  for  a precise,  but  certainly  false, 
notice  in  Pliny,  who  represents  him  as  flourishing  in 
420-416,  our  literary  sources  yield  only  vague  indica- 
tions as  to  his  date.  These  indications,  such  as  they 
are,  point  to  the  “Transitional  period.”  This  inference 
is  strengthened  by  the  recent  discovery  on  the  Athenian 
Acropolis  of  a pair  of  pedestals  inscribed  with  the 
name  of  Myron’s  son  and  probably  datable  about  446. 
Finally,  the  argument  is  clinched  by  the  style  of 
Myron’s  most  certainly  identifiable  work. 

Pliny  makes  Myron  the  pupil  of  an  influential  Argive 
master,  Ageladas,  who  belongs  in  the  late  archaic 
period.  Whether  or  not  such  a relation  actually  ex- 
isted, the  statement  is  useful  as  a reminder  of  the  proba- 
bility that  Argos  and  Athens  were  artistically  in  touch 
with  one  another.  Beyond  this,  we  get  no  direct 
testimony  as  to  the  circumstances  of  Myron’s  life.  We 
can  only  infer  that  his  genius  was  widely  recognized  in 
his  lifetime,  seeing  that  commissions  came  to  him,  not 
from  Athens  only,  but  also  from  other  cities  of  Greece 


? 

5 


i 

1 

I 

1 


i\U4 


■%/Cu^ 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  167 


proper,  as  well  as  from  distant  Samos  and  Ephesus. 
His  chief  material  was  bronze,  and  colossal  figures  of 
gold  and  ivory  are  also  ascribed  to  him.  So  far  as  we 
know,  he  did  not  work  in  marble  at  all.  His  range  of 
subjects  included 
divinities,  heroes, 
men,  and  ani- 
mals. Of  no  work 
of  his  do  we  hear 
so  often  or  in 
terms  of  such 
high  praise  as  of 
a certain  figure  of 
a cow,  which 
stood  on  or  near 
the  Athenian 
Acropolis.  A 
large  number  of 
athlete  statues 
from  his  hand 
were  to  be  seen 
at  Olympia,  Del- 
phi, and  perhaps 
elsewhere,  and 
this  side  of  his 
activity  was  cer- 
tainly an  impor- 
tant one.  Per- 
haps it  is  a mere 
accident  that  we 
hear  less  of  his  statues  of  divinities  and  heroes. 

The  starting  point  in  any  study  of  Myron  must  be  his 
Discobolus  (Discus-thrower).  Fig.  104  reproduces  the 
best  copy;  This  statue  was  found  in  Rome  in  1781, 


Fig.  104. — Copy  of  the  Discobolus  of  Myron. 
Rome,  Lancellotti  Palace. 

(From  Collignon,  “Histoire  de  la  Sculpture 
Grecque,”  Vol.  I.,  PI.  XI.) 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


168 


and  is  in  an  unusually  good  state  of  preservation.  The 
head  has  never  been  broken  from  the  body  ; the  right 
arm  has  been  broken  off,  but  is  substantially  antique  ; 
and  the  only  considerable  restoration  is  the  right  leg 
from  the  knee  to  the  ankle.  The  two  other  most 
important  copies  were  found  together  in  1791  on  the 
site  of  Hadrian’s  villa  at  Tibur  (Tivoli).  One  of  these 
is  now  in  the  British  Museum,  the  other  in  the  Vatican  ; 
neither  has  its  original  head.  A fourth  copy  of  the 
body,  a good  deal  disguised  by  “restoration,”  exists 
in  the  Museum  of  the  Capitol  in  Rome.  There  are  also 
other  copies  of  the  head  besides  the  one  on  the  Lancel- 
lotti  statue. 

The  proof  that  these  statues  and  parts  of  statues  were 
copied  from  Myron’s  Discobolus  depends  principally 
upon  a passage  in  Lucian  (about  160  A.  D.  ).*  He  gives 
a circumstantial  description  of  the  attitude  of  that  work, 
or  rather  of  a copy  of  it,  and  his  description  agrees 
point  for  point  with  the  statues  in  question.  This  agree- 
ment is  the  more  decisive  because  the  attitude  is  a very 
remarkable  one,  no  other  known  figure  showing  any- 
thing in  the  least  resembling  it.  Moreover,  the  style  of 
the  Lancellotti  statue  points  to  a bronze  original  of  the 
“ Transitional  period,”  to  which  on  historical  grounds 
Myron  is  assigned. 

Myron’s  statue  represented  a young  Greek  who  had 
been  victorious  in  the  peyitathlon , or  group  of  five  con- 
tests (running,  leaping,  wrestling,  throwing  the  spear, 
and  hurling  the  discus),  but  we  have  no  clue  as  to 
where  in  the  Greek  world  it  was  set  up.  The  attitude 
of  the  figure  seems  a strange  one  at  first  sight,  but 
other  ancient  representations,  as  well  as  modern  experi- 
ments, leave  little  room  for  doubt  that  the  sculptor  has 


* Philopseudes,  g 18. 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 169 


truthfully  caught  one  of  the  rapidly  changing  positions 
which  the  exercise  involved.  Having  passed  the  discus 
from  his  left  hand  to  his  right,  the  athlete  has  swung  the 
missile  as  far  back  as  possible.  In  the  next  instant  he 
will  hurl  it  forward,  at  the  same  time,  of  course,  advanc- 
ing his  left  foot  and  recovering  his  erect  position.  Thus 
Myron  has  preferred  to  the  comparatively  easy  task  of 
representing  the  athlete  at  rest,  bearing  some  symbol  of 
victory,  the  far  more  difficult  problem  of  exhibiting  him 
in  action.  It  would  seem  that  he  delighted  in  the 
expression  of  movement.  So  his  Ladas,  known  to  us 
only  from  two  epigrams  in  the  Anthology,  represented  a 
runner  panting  toward  the  goal  ; and  others  of  his 
athlete  statues  may  have  been  similarly  conceived.  His 
temple-images,  on  the  other  hand,  must  have  been  as 
composed  in  attitude  as  the  Discobolus  is  energetic. 

The  face  of  the  Discobolus  is  rather  typical  than  indi- 
vidual. If  this  is  not  immediately  obvious  to  the  reader, 
the  comparison  of  a closely  allied  head  may  make  it 
clear.  Of  the  numerous  works  which  have  been 
brought  into  relation  with  Myron  by  reason  of  their 
likeness  to  the  Discobolus,  none  is  so  unmistakable  as  a 
fine  bust  in  Florence  (Fig.  105).  The  general  form  of 
the  head,  the  rendering  of  the  hair,  the  anatomy  of  the 
forehead,  the  form  of  the  nose  and  the  angle  it  makes 
with  the  forehead — these  and  other  features  noted  by 
Professor  Furtwangler  are  alike  in  the  Discobolus  and 
the  Riccardi  head.  These  detailed  resemblances  cannot 
be  verified  without  the  help  of  casts  or  at  least  of  good 
photographs  taken  from  different  points  of  view  ; but 
the  general  impression  of  likeness  will  be  felt  convincing, 
even  without  analysis.  Now  these  two  works  represent 
different  persons,  the  Riccardi  head  being  probably 
copied  from  the  statue  of  some  ideal  hero.  And  the 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


170 


point  to  be  especially  illustrated  is  that  in  the  Discobolus 
we  have  not  a realistic  portrait,  but  a generalized  type. 
This  is  not  the  same  as  to  say  that  the  face  bore  no 
recognizable  resemblance  to  the  young  man  whom  the 
statue  commemorated.  Portraiture  admits  of  many 

degrees,  from  literal 
fidelity  to  an  ideal- 
ization in  which  the 
identity  of  the  sub- 
ject is  all  but  lost. 
All  that  is  meant  is 
that  the  Discobolus 
belongs  somewhere 
near  the  latter  end 
of  the  scale.  In 
this  absence  of  indi- 
vidualizatio  n we 
have  a trait,  not  of 
Myron  alone,  but  of 
Greek  sculpture 
generally  in  its  rise 
and  in  the  earlier 
stages  of  its  perfec- 
tion (cf.  page  126). 

Another  work  of  Myron  has  been  plausibly  recognized 
in  a statue  of  a satyr  in  the  Lateran  Museum  (Fig.  106). 
The  evidence  for  this  is  too  complex  to  be  stated 
here.  If  the  identification  is  correct,  the  Lateran 
statue  is  copied  from  the  figure  of  Marsyas  in  a bronze 
group  of  Athena  and  Marsyas  which  stood  on  the 
Athenian  Acropolis.  The  goddess  was  represented  as 
having  just  flung  down  in  disdain  a pair  of  flutes  ; the 
satyr,  advancing  on  tiptoe,  hesitates  between  cupidity 
and  the  fear  of  Athena’s  displeasure.  Marsyas  has  a 


Fig.  105. — Bust,  probably  after  Myron. 
Florence,  Riccardi  Palace. 

(From  Furtwangler,  “ Meisterwerke,”  PI.  XVII.) 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 17 1 


lean  and  sinewy  figure,  coarse  stiff  hair  and  beard,  a 
wrinkled  forehead,  a broad  fiat  nose  which  makes 
a marked  angle  with  the  forehead,  pointed  ears 
(modern,  but  guaranteed  by  another  copy  of  the  head), 
and  a short  tail  sprouting  from  the  small  of  the  back. 
The  arms,  which  were  missing,  have  been  incorrectly 
restored  with  casta- 
nets. The  right 
should  be  held  up, 
the  left  down,  in  a 
gesture  of  astonish- 
ment. In  this  work 
we  see  again  Myron’s 
skill  in  suggesting 
movement.  We  get 
a lively  impression  of 
an  advance  suddenly 
checked  and  changed 
to  a recoil. 

Thus  far  in  this 
chapter  we  have  been 
dealing  with  copies. 

Our  stock  of  original 
works  of  this  period, 
however,  is  not  small; 
it  consists,  as  usual, 
largely  of  architec- 
tural sculpture.  Fig. 

107  shows  four  meto- 
pes from  a temple  at  FlG-  106.— Satyr  probably  after  Myron. 
r ' 1 Rome,  Lateran  Museum. 

Selinus.  They  repre- 
sent (beginning  at  the  left)  Heracles  in  combat  with  an 
Amazon,  Hera  unveiling  herself  before  Zeus,  Actaeon 
torn  by  his  dogs  in  the  presence  of  Artemis,  and  Athena 


172 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


overcoming  the  giant  Enceladus.  These  reliefs  would 
repay  the  most  careful  study,  but  the  sculptures  of  an- 
other temple  have  still  stronger  claims  to  attention. 

Olympia  was  one  of  the  two  most  important  religious 
centers  of  the  Greek  world,  the  other  being  Delphi. 
Olympia  was  sacred  to  Zeus,  and  the  great  Doric 
temple  of  Zeus  was  thus  the  chief  among  the  group  of 


Fig.  107. — Portion  of  Doric  Frieze  with  Sculptured  Metopes, 
from  Selinus.  Palermo. 

religious  buildings  there  assembled.  The  erection  of 
this  temple  probably  falls  in  the  years  just  preceding 
and  following  460  B.  C.  A slight  exploration  carried 
on  by  the  French  in  1829  and  the  thorough  excavation 
of  the  site  by  the  Germans  in  1875-81  brought  to  light 
extensive  remains  of  its  sculptured  decoration.  This 
consisted  of  two  pediment-groups  and  twelve  sculptured 
metopes^  besides  the  acroteria.  In  the  eastern  pedi- 
ment the  subject  is  the  preparation  for  the  chariot- 
race  of  Pelops  and  CEnomaus.  The  legend  ran  that 
LEnomaus,  king  of  Pisa  in  Elis,  refused  the  hand  of  his 
daughter  save  to  one  who  should  beat  him  in  a chariot- 
race.  Suitor  after  suitor  tried  and  failed,  till  at  last 
Pelops,  a young  prince  from  over  sea,  succeeded. 
In  the  pediment-group  Zeus,  as  arbiter  of  the  impending 
contest,  occupies  the  center.  On  one  side  of  him  stand 
Pelops  and  his  destined  bride,  on  the  other  CEnomaus 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 173 


and  his  wife,  Sterope  (Fig.  108).  The  chariots,  with 
attendants  and  other  more  or  less  interested  persons 
follow  (Fig.  109).  The  moment  chosen  by  the  sculp- 


Fig.  108. — CEnomaus  and  Sterope.  Olympia. 

tor  is  one  of  expectancy  rather  than  action,  and  the 
various  figures  are  in  consequence  simply  juxtaposed, 
not  interlocked.  Far  different  is  the  scene  presented 
by  the  western  pediment.  The  subject  here  is  the 


174 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


combat  between  Lapiths  and  Centaurs,  one  of  the 
favorite  themes  of  Greek  sculpture,  as  of  Greek  paint- 
ing. The  Centaurs,  brutal  creatures,  partly  human, 
partly  equine,  were  fabled  to  have  lived  in  Thessaly. 
There  too  was  the  home  of  the  Lapiths,  who  were 


Fig.  109.— Elderly  Man.  Olympia. 


Greeks.  At  the  wedding  of  Pirithoiis,  king  of  the 
Lapiths,  the  Centaurs,  who  had  been  bidden  as  guests, 
became  inflamed  with  wine  and  began  to  lay  hands 
on  the  women.  Hence  a general  mU£e,  in  which  the 
Greeks  were  victorious.  The  sculptor  has  placed  the 
god  Apollo  in  the  center  (Fig.  no),  undisturbed  amid 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  175 


the  wild  tumult ; his  presence  alone  assures  us  what 
the  issue  is  to  be.  The  struggling  groups  (Figs. 
hi,  1 1 2)  extend  nearly  to  the  corners,  which  are 
occupied  each  by 
two  reclin  ing  fe- 
male figures,  specta- 
tors of  the  scene. 

In  each  pediment 
the  composition  is 
symmetrical,  every 
figure  having  its 
corresponding  fig- 
ure on  the  opposite 
side.  Yet  the  law 
of  symmetry  is  in- 
terpreted much 
more  freely  than  in 
the  ^gina  p e d i - 
ments  of  a gener- 

. , . Fig.  no.— Head  of  Apollo.  Olympia, 

at  ion  earlier;  the 

corresponding  figures  often  differ  from  one  another  a 
good  deal  in  attitude,  and  in  one  instance  even  in  sex. 

Our  illustrations,  which  give  a few  representative 
specimens  of  these  sculptures,  suggest  some  comments. 
To  begin  with,  the  workmanship  here  displayed  is  rapid 
and  far  from  faultless.  Unlike  the  ^ginetan  pediment- 
figures  and  those  of  the  Parthenon,  these  figures  are  left 
rough  at  the  back.  Moreover,  even  in  the  visible  por- 
tions there  are  surprising  evidences  of  carelessness,  as 
in  the  portentously  long  left  thigh  of  the  Lapith  in  Fig. 
1 1 2.  It  is,  again,  evidence  of  rapid,  though  not  exactly 
of  faulty,  execution,  that  the  hair  is  in  a good  many 
cases  only  blocked  out,  the  form  of  the  mass  being 
given,  but  its  texture  not  indicated  (^.  g.y  Fig.  111). 


176  A History  of  Greek  Art . 


In  the  pose  of  the  standing  figures  (e.  g.,  Fig.  108),  with 
the  weight  borne  about  equally  by  both  legs,  we  see  a 
modified  survival  of  the  usual  archaic  attitude.  A lin- 


Fig.  iii. — Lapith  Bride  and  Centaur.  Olympia. 

gering  archaism  may  be  seen  in  other  features  too  ; very 
plainly,  for  example,  in  the  arrangement  of  Apollo’s 
hair  (Fig.  no).  The  garments  represent  a thick 
woolen  stuff,  whose  folds  show  very  little  pliancy.  The 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 177 


drapery  of  Sterope  (Fig.  108)  should  be  especially 
noted,  as  it  is  a characteristic  example  for  this  period  of 
a type  which  has  a long  history.  She  wears  the  Doric 


Fig.  112. — Lapith  and  Centaur.  Olympia. 

chiton,  a sleeveless  woolen  garment  girded  and  pulled 
over  the  girdle  and  doubled  over  from  the  top.  The 
formal,  starched-looking  folds  of  the  archaic  period  have 
disappeared.  The  cloth  lies  pretty  flat  over  the  chest 


1 78 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


and  waist ; there  is  a rather  arbitrary  little  fold  at  the 
neck.  Below  the  girdle  the  drapery  is  divided  verti- 
cally into  two  parts  ; on  the  one  side  it  falls  in  straight 
folds  to  the  ankle,  on  the  other  it  is  drawn  smooth  over 
the  bent  knee. 

Another  interesting  fact  about  these  sculptures  is  a 
certain  tendency  toward  realism.  The  figures  and  faces 
and  attitudes  of  the  Greeks,  not  to  speak  of  the  Cen- 
taurs, are  not  all  entirely  beautiful  and  noble.  This  is 
illustrated  by  Fig.  109,  a bald-headed  man,  rather  fat. 
Here  is  realism  of  a very  mild  type,  to  be  sure,  in  com- 
parison with  what  we  are  accustomed  to  nowadays  ; but 
the  old  men  of  the  Parthenon  frieze  bear  no  disfiguring 
marks  of  age.  Again,  in  the  face  of  the  young  Lapith 
whose  arm  is  being  bitten  by  a Centaur  (Fig.  112), 
there  is  a marked  attempt  to  express  physical  pain  ; the 
features  are  more  distorted  than  in  any  other  fifth 
century  sculpture,  except  representations  of  Centaurs  or 
other  inferior  creatures.  In  the  other  heads  of  imperiled 
men  and  women  in  this  pediment,  e.  g. , in  that  of  the 
bride  (Fig.  111),  the  ideal  calm  of  the  features  is 
overspread  with  only  a faint  shadow  of  distress. 

Lest  what  has  been  said  should  suggest  that  the 
sculptors  of  the  Olympia  pediment-figures  were  in- 
different to  beauty,  attention  may  be  drawn  again  to  the 
superb  head  of  the  Lapith  bride.  Apollo,  too  (Fig. 
no),  though  not  that  radiant  god  whom  a later  age 
conceived  and  bodied  forth,  has  an  austere  beauty 
which  only  a dull  eye  can  fail  to  appreciate. 

The  twelve  sculptured  metopes  of  the  temple  do  not 
belong  to  the  exterior  frieze,  whose  metopes  were 
plain,  but  to  a second  frieze,  placed  above  the  columns 
and  antae  of  pronaos  and  opisthodomos.  Their  sub- 
jects are  the  twelve  labors  of  Heracles,  beginning  with 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 179 


the  slaying  of  the  Nemean  lion  and  ending  with  the 
cleansing  of  the  Augean  stables.  The  one  selected  for 
illustration  is  one  of  the  two  or  three  best  preserved 
members  of  the  series  (Fig.  113).  Its  subject  is  the 


Fig.  1 13. — Atlas  Metope.  Olympia. 

winning  of  the  golden  apples  which  grew  in  the  garden 
of  the  Hesperides,  near  the  spot  where  Atlas  stood, 
evermore  supporting  on  his  shoulders  the  weight  of  the 
heavens.  Heracles  prevailed  upon  Atlas  to  go  and 


i8o 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


fetch  the  coveted  treasure,  himself  meanwhile  assuming 
the  burden.  The  moment  chosen  by  the  sculptor  is 
that  of  the  return  of  Atlas  with  the  apples.  In  the 
middle  stands  Heracles,  with  a cushion,  folded  double, 
upon  his  shoulders,  the  sphere  of  the  heavens  being 
barely  suggested  at  the  top  of  the  relief.  Behind  him  is 
his  companion  and  protectress,  Athena,  once  recog- 
nizable by  a lance  in  her  right  hand.*  With  her  left 
hand  she  seeks  to  ease  a little  the  hero’s  heavy  load. 
Before  him  stands  Atlas,  holding  out  the  apples  in  both 
hands.  The  main  lines  of  the  composition  are  some- 
what monotonous,  but  this  is  a consequence  of  the 
subject,  not  of  any  incapacity  of  the  artist,  as  the  other 
metopes  testify.  The  figure  of  Athena  should  be  com- 
pared with  that  of  Sterope 
in  the  eastern  pediment. 
There  is  a substantial  resem- 
blance in  the  drapery,  even 
to  the  arbitrary  little  fold  in 
the  neck  ; but  the  garment 
here  is  entirely  open  on  the 
right  side,  after  the  fashion 
followed  by  Spartan  maid- 
ens, whereas  there  it  is  sewed 
together  from  the  waist 
down  ; there  is  here  no  gir- 
dle ; and  the  broad,  flat 
expanse  of  cloth  in  front 
observable  there  is  here  nar- 
rowed by  two  folds  falling  from  the  breasts. 

Fig.  1 14  is  added  as  a last  example  of  the  severe 
beauty  to  be  found  in  these  sculptures.  It  will  be  ob- 


Fig.  i 14. — Head  of  Athena  (?), 
from  Lion  Metope.  Olympia. 


* Such  at  least  seems  to  be  the  view  adopted  in  the  latest  official  publica- 
tion on  the  subject:  “Olympia  ; Die  Bildwerke  in  Stein  und  Thon,”  PI.  LXV. 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 181 


served  that  the  hair 
of  this  head  is  not 
worked  out  in  de- 
tail, except  at  the 
front.  This  sum- 
mary treatment  of 
the  hair  is,  in  fact, 
more  general  in 
the  metopes  than 
i n the  pediment- 
figures.  The  up- 
per eyelid  does  not 
yet  overlap  the 
under  eyelid  at  the 
outer  corner  ff. 

Fig.  no). 

The  two  pedi- 
ment-groups and 
the  metopes  of  this 
temple  show  such 
close  resemblances 
of  style  among 
themselves  that 
they  must  all  be 
regarded  as  prod- 
ucts of  a single 
school  of  sculp- 
ture, if  not  as  de- 
signed by  a single 
man.  Pausanias 
says  nothing  of  the 
authorship  of  the 

metopes;  but  he  FIG.115.— The  Giustiniani  “Vesta.”  Rome, 

..  . Torlonia  Palace, 

tells  VJS  that  the  (From  Baumeister,  “ Denkmaler,”  Fig.  746.) 


182 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


sculptures  of  the  eastern  pediment  were  the  work  of 
Paeonius  of  Mende,  an  indisputable  statue  by  whom  is 
known  ( cf.  page  213),  and  those  of  the  western  byAlca- 
menes,  who  appears  elsewhere  in  literary  tradition  as  a 
pupil  of  Phidias.  On  various  grounds  it  seems  almost 
certain  that  Pausanias  was  misinformed  on  this  point. 
Thus  we  are  left  without  trustworthy  testimony  as  to 
the  affiliations  of  the  artist  or  artists  to  whom  the  sculp- 
tured decoration  of  this  temple  was  intrusted. 

The  so-called  Hestia  (Vesta)  which  formerly  belonged 

to  the  Giustiniani 
family  (Fig.  1 15),  has 
of  late  years  been  in- 
accessible  even  to 
professional  students. 
It  must  be  one  of  the 
very  best  preserved 
of  ancient  statues  in 
marble,  as  it  is  not 
reported  to  have 
anything  modern 
about  it  except  the 
index  finger  of  the  left 
hand.  This  hand 
originally  held  a scep- 
ter. The  statue  rep- 
resents some  goddess, 
it  is  uncertain  what 
one.  In  view  of  the 
likeness  in  the  drap- 
ery to  some  of  the  Olympia  figures,  no  one  can  doubt 
that  this  is  a product  of  the  same  period. 

In  regard  to  the  bronze  statue  shown  in  Fig.  1 16  there 
is  more  room  for  doubt,  but  the  weight  of  opinion  is  in 


Fig.  116.— The  “Spinario.” 
Rome,  Palace  of  the  Conservatori. 


The  Transitional  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 183 


favor  of  placing  it  here.  It  is  confidently  claimed  by  a 
high  authority  that  this  is  an  original  Greek  bronze. 
There  exist  also  fragmentary  copies  of  the  same  in 
marble  and  free  imitations  in  marble  and  in  bronze.  The 
statue  represents  a boy  of  perhaps  twelve,  absorbed  in 
pulling  a thorn  from  his  foot.  We  do  not  know  the 
original  purpose  of  the  work  ; perhaps  it  commemorated 
a victory  won  in  a foot-race  of  boys.  The  left  leg  of  the 
figure  is  held  in  a position  which  gives  a somewhat  un- 
graceful outline  ; Praxiteles  would  not  have  placed  it  so. 
But  how  delightful  is  the  picture  of  childish  innocence 
and  self-forgetfulness  ! This  statue  might  be  regarded  as 
an  epitome  of  the  artistic  spirit  and  capacity  of  the  age 
— its  simplicity  and  purity  and  freshness  of  feeling,  its 
not  quite  complete  emancipation  from  the  formalism  of 
an  earlier  day. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  GREAT  AGE  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE.  FIRST 
PERIOD  : 450-4OO  B.  C. 

The  Age  of  Pericles,  which,  if  we  reckon  from  the 
first  entrance  of  Pericles  into  politics,  extended  from 
about  466  to  429,  has  become  proverbial  as  a period  of 
extraordinary  artistic  and  literary  splendor.  The  real 
ascendancy  of  Pericles  began  in  447,  and  the  achieve- 
ments most  properly  associated  with  his  name  belong  to 
the  succeeding  fifteen  years.  Athens  at  this  time 
possessed  ample  material  resources,  derived  in  great 
measure  from  the  tribute  of  subject  allies  ; and  wealth 
was  freely  spent  upon  noble  monuments  of  art.  The 
city  was  filled  with  artists  of  high  and  low  degree. 
Above  them  all  in  genius  towered  Phidias,  and  to  him,  if 
we  may  believe  the  testimony  of  Plutarch,*  a general 
superintendence  of  all  the  artistic  undertakings  of  the 
state  was  intrusted  by  Pericles. 

Great  as  was  the  fame  of  Phidias  in  after  ages,  we  are 
left  in  almost  complete  ignorance  as  to  the  circum- 
stances of  his  life.  If  he  was  really  the  author  of  cer- 
tain works  ascribed  to  him,  he  must  have  been  born 
about  500  B.C.  This  would  make  him  as  old,  perhaps, 
as  Myron.  Another  view  would  put  his  birth  between 
490  and  485  ; still  another,  as  late  as  480.  The  one  un- 
disputed date  in  his  life  is  the  year  438,  when  the  gold 
and  ivory  statue  of  Athena  in  the  Parthenon  was  com- 
pleted. Touching  the  time  and  circumstances  of  his 


* “ Life  of  Pericles,”  §13. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


185 


death  we  have  two  inconsistent  traditions.  According 
to  the  one,  he  was  brought  to  trial  in  Athens  im- 
mediately after  the  completion  of  the  Athena  on  the 
charge  of  misappropriating  some  of  the  ivory  with  which 
he  had  been  intrusted,  but  made  his  escape  to  Elis, 
where,  after  executing  the  gold  and  ivory  Zeus  for  the 
temple  of  that  god  at  Olympia,  he  was  put  to  death  for 
some  unspecified  reason  by  the  Eleans  in  432-1.  Ac- 
cording to  the  other  tradition,  he  was  accused  in 
Athens,  apparently  not  before  432,  of  stealing  some  of 
the  gold  destined  for  the  Athena,  and,  when  this  charge 
broke  down,  of  having  sacrilegiously  introduced  his  own 
and  Pericles’s  portraits  into  the  relief  on  Athena’s 
shield  ; being  cast  into  prison,  he  died  there  of  disease, 
or,  as  some  said,  of  poison. 

The  most  famous  works  of  Phidias  were  the  two 
chryselephantine  statues  to  which  reference  has  just  been 
made,  and  two  or  three  other  statues  of  the  same  ma- 
terials were  ascribed  to  him.  He  worked  also  in  bronze 
and  in  marble.  From  a reference  in  Aristotle’s 
“ Ethics  ” it  might  seem  as  if  he  were  best  known  as  a 
sculptor  in  marble,  but  only  three  statues  by  him  are 
expressly  recorded  to  have  been  of  marble,  against  a 
larger  number  of  bronze.  His  subjects  were  chiefly 
divinities  ; we  hear  of  only  one  or  two  figures  of  human 
beings  from  his  hands. 

Of  the  colossal  Zeus  at  Olympia,  the  most  august 
creation  of  Greek  artistic  imagination,  we  can  form  only 
an  indistinct  idea.  The  god  was  seated  upon  a throne, 
holding  a figure  of  Victory  upon  one  hand  and  a scepter 
in  the  other.  The  figure  is  represented  on  three  Elean 
coins  of  the  time  of  Hadrian  (117-138  A.  D. ),  but  on 
too  small  a scale  to  help  us  much.  Another  coin  of  the 
same  period  gives  a fine  head  of  Zeus  in  profile  (Fig. 


1 86 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


1 17),*  which  is  plausibly  supposed  to  preserve  some 
likeness  to  the  head  of  Phidias’s  statue. 

In  regard  to  the  Athena  of  the  Parthenon  we  are  con- 
siderably better  off,  for  we  possess  a number  of  marble 

statues  which, 
with  the  aid  of 
Pausanias’s  de- 
scription and  by 
comparison  with 
one  another,  can 
be  proved  to  be 
copies  of  that 

work.  But  a 
warning  is  nec- 
essary here.  The 
Athena,  like  the 

Zeus,  was  of 

colossal  size.  Its 

Fig.  117.— Bronze  Coin  of  Elis  (enlarged).  height,  with  the 

pedestal,  was 

about  thirty-eight  feet.  Now  it  is  not  likely  that  a 
really  exact  copy  on  a small  scale  could  possibly  have 
been  made  from  such  a statue,  nor,  if  one  had  been 
made,  would  it  have  given  the  effect  of  the  original. 
With  this  warning  laid  well  to  heart  the  reader  may 
venture  to  examine  that  one  among  our  copies  which 
makes  the  greatest  attempt  at  exactitude  (Fig.  118). 
It  is  a statuette,  not  quite  3^  feet  high  with  the  basis, 
found  in  Athens  in  1.880.  The  goddess  stands  with  her 
left  leg  bent  a little  and  pushed  to  one  side.  She  is 
dressed  in  a heavy  Doric  chiton,  open  at  the  side.  The 
girdle,  whose  ends  take  the  form  of  snakes’  heads,  is 


*A  more  truthful  representation  of  this  coin  may  be  found  in  Gardner’s 
“ Types  of  Greek  Coins,”  PI.  XV.,  19. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 187 


worn  outside  the  doubled-over  portion  of  the  garment. 
Above  it  the  folds  are  carefully  adjusted,  drawn  in  sym- 
metrically from  both 
sides  toward  the 
middle  ; in  the  lower 
part  of  the  figure 
there  is  the  common 
vertical  division  into 
two  parts,  owing  to 
the  bending  of  one 
leg.  Over  the  chiton 
is  the  segis,  much  less 
long  behind  than  in 
earlier  art  (cf.  Fig. 

98),  fringed  with 
snakes’  heads  and 
having  a Gorgon’ s 
mask  in  front.  The 
helmet  is  an  elabo- 
rate affair  with  three 
crests,  the  central  one 
supported  by  a 
sphinx,  the  others  by 
winged  horses  ; the 
hinged  cheek-pieces 
are  turned  up„  At 
the  left  of  the  god- 
dess is  her  shield, 
within  which  coils  a 
serpent.  On  her  ex- 
tended right  hand  Fig.  1 18. — Reduced  Copy  of  the  Athena  of 
■,  xr-  , the  Parthenon.  Athens,  National  Museum. 

stands  a Victory. 

The  face  of  Athena  is  the  most  disappointing  part  of  it 
all,  but  it  is  just  there  that  the  copyist  must  have  failed 


tc 

i i 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


188 


most  completely.  Only  the  eye  of  faith,  or  better,  the 
eye  trained  by  much  study  of  allied  works,  can  divine  in 

this  poor  little  figure 
the  majesty  which 
awed  the  beholder 
of  Phidias’s  work. 

Speculation  has 
been  busy  in  at- 
tempting to  connect 
other  statues  that 
have  been  preserved 
to  us  with  the  name 
of  Phidias.  The 
most  probable  case 
that  has  yet  been 
made  out  concerns 
two  closely  similar 
marble  figures  in 
Dresden,  one  of 
which  is  shown  in 
Fig.  1 19.  The  head 
of  this  statue  is  miss- 
ing, but  its  place 
has  been  supplied 
by  a cast  of  a head 
in  Bologna  (F  ig. 
120),  which  has 
been  proved  to  be 
another  copy  from 
the  same  original. 
This  proof,  about 
which  there  seems 
„ . ~ , to  be  no  room  for 

Fig.  1 19. — Athena.  Dresden. 

(From  Furtwangler,  “ Meisterwerke,”  PI.  II.)  question,  is  due  to 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


189 


Professor  Furtwangler,*  who  argues  further  that  the 
statue  as  thus  restored  is  a faithful  copy  of  the  Lemnian 
Athena  of  Phidias,  a bronze  work  which  stood  on  the 
Athenian  Acropolis.  The  proof  of  this  depends  upon 
(1)  the  resemblance  in  the  standing  position  and  in  the 
drapery  of  this  figure  to  the  Athena  of  the  Parthenon, 
and  (2)  the  fact  that  Phidias  is  known  to  have  made 
a statue  of  Athena 
(thought  to  be  the 
Lemnian  Athena) 
without  a helmet  on 
the  head — a n ex- 
ceptional, though 
not  wholly  unique, 
representation  in 
sculpture  in  the 
round. 

If  this  demon- 
stration be  thought 
insufficient,  there 
cannot,  at  all  events, 
be  much  doubt  that 
we  have  here  the  copy 
of  an  original  of  about 
the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century.  The  style  is 
severely  simple,  as 
we  ought  to  expect  of 
a religious  work  of 
that  period.  The  virginal  face,  conceived  and  wrought 
with  ineffable  refinement,  is  as  far  removed  from  sensual 
charm  as  from  the  ecstasy  of  a Madonna.  The  goddess 
does  not  reveal  herself  as  one  who  can  be  ‘ ‘ touched 


Fig.  120. — Head  of  Athena.  Bologna. 


* “ Masterpieces  of  Greek  Sculpture,”  pages  4 ff. 


190 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


with  a feeling  of  our  infirmities  ” ; but  by  the  power  of 
her  pure,  passionless  beauty  she  sways  our  minds  and 
hearts. 

The  supreme  architectural  achievement  of  the  Peri- 
clean  age  was  the  Parthenon,  which  crowned  the  Athe- 
nian Acropolis.  It  appears  to  have  been  begun  in  447, 
and  was  roofed  over  and  perhaps  substantially  finished 
by  438.  Its  sculptures  were  more  extensive  than  those 
of  any  other  Greek  temple,  comprising  two  pediment- 
groups,  the  whole  set  of  metopes  of  the  exterior  frieze, 
ninety-two  in  number,  and  a continuous  frieze  of  bas- 
relief,  522  feet  10  inches  in  total  length,  surrounding  the 
cella  and  its  vestibules  ( cf.  Fig.  56).  After  serving  its 
original  purpose  for  nearly  a thousand  years,  the  build- 
ing was  converted  into  a Christian  church  and  then,  in 
the  fifteenth  century,  into  a Mohammedan  mosque.  In 
1687  Athens  was  besieged  by  the  forces  of  Venice.  The 
Parthenon  was  used  by  the  Turks  as  a powder-magazine, 
and  was  consequently  made  the  target  for  the  enemy’s 
shells.  The  result  was  an  explosion,  which  converted 
the  building  into  a ruin.  Of  the  sculptures  which 
escaped  from  this  catastrophe,  many  small  pieces  were 
carried  off  at  the  time  or  subsequently,  while  other  pieces 
were  used  as  building  stone  or  thrown  into  the  lime-kiln. 
Most  of  those  which  remained  down  to  the  beginning  of 
this  century  were  acquired  by  Lord  Elgin,  acting  under 
a permission  from  the  Turkish  government  (1801-3), 
and  in  1816  were  bought  for  the  British  Museum.  The 
rest  are  in  Athens,  either  in  their  original  positions  on 
the  building,  or  in  the  Acropolis  Museum. 

The  best  preserved  metopes  of  the  Parthenon  belong 
to  the  south  side  and  represent  scenes  from  the  contest 
between  Lapiths  and  Centaurs  (cf  page  174).  These 
metopes  differ  markedly  in  style  from  one  another,  and 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


191 


Fig.  121. — Parthenon  Metope. 
London,  British  Museum. 


must  have  been  not  only  executed,  but  designed,  by 
different  hands.  One 
or  two  of  them  are 
spiritless  and  uninter- 
esting. Others,  while 
fine  in  their  way, 
show  little  vehemence 
of  action.  Fig.  121 
gives  one  of  this  class. 

Fig.  122  is  very  dif- 
ferent. In  this  44  the 
Lapith  presses  for- 
ward, advancing  his 
left  hand  to  seize  the 
rearing  Centaur  by 
the  throat,  and  forc- 
ing him  on  his  haunches  ; the  right  arm  of  the  Lapith  is 

drawn  back,  as  if  to 
strike  ; his  right 
hand,  now  wanting, 
probably  held  a 

sword The 

Centaur,  rearing  up 
against  his  antago- 
nist, tries  in  vain  to 
pull  away  the  left 
hand  of  the  Lapith, 
which,  in  Carrey’s 
drawing  [made  in 
1674]  he  grasps.”* 
Observe  how  skilfully 
the  design  is  adapted 
to  the  square  field,  so  as  to  leave  no  unpleasant  blank 


Fig.  122.— Parthenon  Metope. 
London,  British  Museum. 


* A.  H.  Smith,  “ Catalogue  of  Sculpture  in  the  British  Museum,”  page  136. 


192 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


spaces,  how  flowing  and  free  from  monotony  are  the 
lines  of  the  composition,  how  effective  (in  contrast  with 
Fig.  1 21)  is  the  management  of  the  drapery,  and, 
above  all,  what  vigor  is  displayed  in  the  attitudes.  Fig. 

123  is  of  kindred  char- 
acter. These  two 
metopes  and  two  oth- 
ers, one  representing  a 
victorious  Centaur 
prancing  in  savage  glee 
over  the  body  of  his 
prostrate  foe,  the  other 
showing  a Lapith  about 
to  strike  a Centaur  al- 
ready wounded  in  the 
back,  are  among  the 
very  best  works  of 

Fig.  123.— Parthenon  Metope.  Greek  sculpture  pre- 

London,  British  Museum. 

served  to  us. 

The  Parthenon  frieze  presents  an  idealized  picture  of 
the  procession  which  wound  its  way  upward  from  the 
market-place  to  the  Acropolis  on  the  occasion  of 
Athena’s  chief  festival.  Fully  to  illustrate  this  exten- 
sive and  varied  composition  is  out  of  the  question  here. 
All  that  is  possible  is  to  give  three  or  four  representative 
pieces  and  a few  comments.  Fig.  124  shows  the  best 
preserved  piece  of  the  entire  frieze.  It  belongs  to  a 
company  of  divinities,  seated  to  right  and  left  of  the 
central  group  of  the  east  front,  and  conceived  as  specta- 
tors of  the  scene.  The  figure  at  the  left  of  the  illustra- 
tion is  almost  certainly  Posidon,  and  the  others  are 
perhaps  Apollo  and  Artemis.  In  Fig.  125  three  youths 
advance  with  measured  step,  carrying  jars  filled  with 
wine,  while  a fourth  youth  stoops  to  lift  his  jar  ; at  the 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


193 


extreme  right  may  be  seen  part  of  a flute-player,  whose 
figure  was  completed  on  the  next  slab.  The  attitudes  and 
draperies  of  the  three  advancing  youths,  though  similar, 
are  subtly  varied.  So  everywhere  monotony  is  absent 
from  the  frieze.  Fig.  126  is  taken  from  the  most  ani- 
mated and  crowded  part  of  the  design.  Here  Athenian 
youths,  in  a great  variety  of  dress  and  undress,  dash 


Fig.  124.— Portion  of  Slab  of  Parthenon  Frieze  (east). 
Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 


forward  on  small,  mettlesome  horses.  Owing  to  the 
principle  of  isoceplialy  (cf  page  145),  the  mounted  men 
are  of  smaller  dimensions  than  those  on  foot,  but  the 
difference  does  not  offend  the  eye.  In  Fig.  127  we 
have,  on  a somewhat  larger  scale,  the  heads  of  four 
chariot-horses  instinct  with  fiery  life.  Fig.  132  may 
also  be  consulted.  An  endless  variety  in  attitude  and 
spirit,  from  the  calm  of  the  ever-blessed  gods  to  the 
most  impetuous  movement ; grace  and  harmony  of  line  ; 


i94 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


an-  almost  faultless  execution — such  are  some  of  the 
qualities  which  make  the  Parthenon  frieze  the  source 
of  inexhaustible  delight. 

The  composition  of  the  group  in  the  western  pedi- 
ment is  fairly  well  known,  thanks  to  a French  artist, 
Jacques  Carrey,  who  made  a drawing  of  it  in  1674,  when 


Fig.  125. — Slab  of  Parthenon  Frieze  (north). 

Athens,  Acropolis  Museum. 

it  was  still  in  tolerable  preservation.  The  subject  was, 
in  the  words  of  Pausanias,  ‘ ‘ the  strife  of  Posidon  with 
Athena  for  the  land”  of  Attica.  In  the  eastern  pedi- 
ment the  subject  was  the  birth  of  Athena.  The  central 
figures,  eleven  in  number,  had  disappeared  long  before 
Carrey’s  time,  having  probably  been  removed  when  the 
temple  was  converted  into  a church.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  figures  near  the  angles  have  been  better 
preserved  than  any  of  those  from  the  western  pediment, 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


195 


with  one  exception.  The  names  of  these  eastern  figures 
have  been  the  subject  of  endless  guess-work.  All  that 
is  really  certain  is  that  at  the  southern  corner  Helios 
(the  Sun-god)  was  emerging  from  the  sea  in  a chariot 
drawn  by  four  horses,  and  at  the  northern  corner  Selene 
(the  Moon-goddess)  or  perhaps  Nyx  ( Night)  was 
descending  in  a similar  chariot.  Fig.  128  is  the  figure 
that  was  placed  next  to  the  horses  of  Helios.  The 
young  god  or  hero  reclines  in  an  easy  attitude  on  a 
rock  ; under  him  are  spread  his  mantle  and  the  skin  of 


Fig.  126.— Portions  of  Two  Slabs  of  Parthenon  Frieze  (north). 
London,  British  Museum. 

a panther  or  some  such  animal.  In  Fig.  129  we  have, 
beginning  on  the  right,  the  head  of  one  of  Selene’s 
horses  and  the  torso  of  the  goddess  herself,  then  a group 
of  three  closely  connected  female  figures,  known  as  the 
“Three  Fates,”  seated  or  reclining  on  uneven,  rocky 
ground,  and  last  the  body  and  thighs  of  a winged  god- 


196 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


dess,  Victory  or  Iris,  perhaps  belonging  in  the  western 
pediment.  Fig.  130,  from  the  northern  corner  of  the 
western  pediment,  is  commonly  taken  for  a river-god. 

We  possess  but  the  broken  remnants  of  these  two 
pediment-groups,  and  the  key  to  the  interpretation  of 
much  that  we  do  possess  is  lost.  We  cannot  then  fully 
appreciate  the  intention  of  the  great  artist  who  conceived 
these  works.  Yet  even  in  their  ruin  and  their  isolation 


Fig.  127.— Heads  of  Chariot-Horses,  from  Parthenon  Frieze  (south). 
London,  British  Museum.  (From  the  authorized  Brantwood  edition 
of  Ruskin’s  “Aratra  Pentelici,”  PI.  XIII.,  by  permission 
of  Maynard,  Merrill,  & Co.) 


the  pediment-figures  of  the  Parthenon  are  the  sublimest 
creations  of  Greek  art  that  have  escaped  annihilation. 

We  have  no  ancient  testimony  as  to  the  authorship  of 
the  Parthenon  sculptures,  beyond  the  statement  of 
Plutarch,  quoted  above,  that  Phidias  was  the  general 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


*97 


superintendent  of  all  artistic  works  undertaken  during 
Pericles’s  administration.  If  this  statement  be  true,  it 
still  leaves  open  a wide  range  of  conjecture  as  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  his  responsibility  in  this  particular 
case.  Appealing  to  the  sculptures  themselves  for  infor- 
mation, we  find  among  the  metopes  such  differences  of 


Fig.  128. — So-called  “Theseus”  of  the  Parthenon. 

London,  British  Museum. 

style  as  exclude  the  notion  of  single  authorship.  With  the 
frieze  and  the  pediment-groups,  however,  the  case  is  dif- 
ferent. Each  of  these  three  compositions  must,  of  course, 
have  been  designed  by  one  master-artist  and  executed 
by  or  with  the  help  of  subordinate  artists  or  workmen. 
Now  the  pediment-groups,  so  far  as  preserved,  strongly 
suggest  a single  presiding  genius  for  both,  and  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  ascribing  the  design  of  the  frieze  to  the 
same  artist.  Was  it  Phidias?  The  question  has  been 
much  agitated  of  late  years,  but  the  evidence  at  our  dis- 


198 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


Fig.  129.— Group  of  Pediment-Figures  from  the  Parthenon. 
London,  British  Museum. 


posal  does  not  admit  of  a decisive  answer.  The  great 
argument  for  Phidias  lies  in  the  incomparable  merit  of 
these  works  ; and  with  the  probability  that  his  genius  is 


Fig.  130.— So-called  “Ilissos”  of  the  Parthenon. 

London,  British  Museum. 

here  in  some  degree  revealed  to  us  we  must  needs  be 
content.  After  all,  it  is  of  much  less  consequence  to  be 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture, 


199 


assured  of  the  master’s  name  than  to  know  and  enjoy 
the  masterpieces  themselves. 

The  great  statesman  under  whose  administration  these 
immortal  sculptures  were  produced  was  commemorated 
by  a portrait  statue 
or  head,  set  up 
during  his  lifetime 
on  the  Athenian 
Acropolis  ; it  was 
from  the  hand  of 
Cresilas,  of  Cydonia 
in  Crete.  It  is  per- 
haps this  portrait  of 
which  copies  have 
come  down  to  us. 

The  best  of  these  is 
given  in  Fig.-  131. 

The  features  are,  we 
may  believe,  the 
authentic  features  of 
Pericles,  somewhat 
idealized,  according 
to  the  custom  of 
portraiture  in  this 
age.  The  helmet 
characterizes  the 
wearer  as  general. 

The  artistic  activ- 
ity in  Athens  did 
not  cease  with  the 
outbreak  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War 
in  431.  The  city  was  full  of  sculptors,  many  of  whom 
had  come  directly  under  the  influence  of  Phidias,  and 


Fig.  131. — Head  of  Pericles. 
London,  British  Museum. 


200 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


they  were  not  left  idle.  The  demand  from  private  indi- 
viduals for  votive  sculptures  and  funeral  reliefs  must  in- 
deed have  been  abated,  but  was  not  extinguished  ; and 
in  the  intervals  of  the  protracted  war  the  state  undertook 
important  enterprises  with  an  undaunted  spirit.  It  is  to 
this  period  that  the  Erechtheum  probably  belongs 
(42o?~4o8),  though  all  that  we  certainly  know  is  that 
the  building  was  nearly  finished  some  time  before  409 
and  that  the  work  was  resumed  in  that  year.  The  tem- 
ple had  a sculptured  frieze  of  which  fragments  are  extant, 
but  these  are  far  surpassed  in  interest  by  the  Caryatides 
of  the  southern  porch  (Fig.  67).  The  name  Cary- 
atides, by  the  way,  meets  us  first  in  the  pages  of  Vitru- 
vius, a Roman  architect  of  the  time  of  Augustus  ; a 
contemporary  Athenian  inscription,  to  which  we  are 
indebted  for  many  details  concerning  the  building,  calls 
them  simply  “maidens.”  As  you  face  the  front  of  the 
porch,  the  three  maidens  on  your  right  support  them- 
selves chiefly  on  the  left  leg,  the  three  on  your  left  on 
the  right  leg  (Fig.  132),  so  that  the  leg  in  action  is  the 
one  nearer  to  the  end  of  the  porch.  The  arms  hung 
straight  at  the  sides,  one  of  them  grasping  a corner 
of  the  small  mantle.  The  pose  and  drapery  show  what 
Attic  sculpture  had  made  of  the  old  Peloponnesian 
type  of  standing  female  figure  in  the  Doric  chiton  ff. 
page  177).  The  fall  of  the  garment  preserves  the  same 
general  features,  but  the  stuff  has  become  much  more 
pliable.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  in  spite  of  a close 
general  similarity,  no  two  maidens  are  exactly  alike,  as 
they  would  have  been  if  they  had  been  reproduced 
mechanically  from  a finished  model.  These  subtle 
variations  are  among  the  secrets  of  the  beauty  of  this 
porch,  as  they  are  of  the  Parthenon  frieze.  One  may 
be  permitted  to  object  altogether  to  xhe  use  of  human 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


201 


figures  as  architectural  supports,  but  if  the  thing  was  to 
be  done  at  all,  it  could  not  have  been  better  done.  The 
weight  that  the  maidens  bear  is  comparatively  small, 
and  their  figures  are  as  strong  as  they  are  graceful. 


Img.  132.— Caryatid  from  the  Erechtheum.  London,  British  Museum. 


To  the  period  of  the  Peloponnesian  War  may  also  be 
assigned  a sculptured  balustrade  which  inclosed  and 
protected  the  precinct  of  the  little  Temple  of  Wingless 
Victory  on  the  Acropolis  (Fig.  70).  One  slab  of  this 
balustrade  is  shown  in  Fig.  133.  It  represents  a 


202 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


winged  Victory  stooping  to  tie  (or,  as  some  will  have 
it,  to  untie)  her  sandal.  The  soft  Ionic  chiton,  clinging 
to  the  form,  reminds  one  of  the  drapery  of  the  reclining 
goddess  from  the  eastern  pediment  of  the  Parthenon 

(Fig.  129),  but  it 
finds  its  closest 
analogy,  among  dat- 
able sculptures,  in  a 
fragment  of  relief 
recently  found  at 
Rhamnus  in  Attica. 
This  belonged  to 
the  pedestal  of  a 
statue  by  Agoracri- 
tus,  one  of  the  most 
famous  pupils  of 
Phidias. 

The  Attic  grave- 
relief  given  in  Fig. 
1 34  seems  to  belong 
somewhere  near  the 
end  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. The  subject 
is  a common  one 
on  this  class  of  mon- 
uments, but  is 

Fig.  133— Relief  of  a Victory.  nowhere  else  SO  ex- 

Athens,  Acropolis  Museum.  . . , 

quisitely  treated. 
There  is  no  allusion  to  the  fact  of  death.  Hegeso,  the 
deceased  lady,  is  seated  and  is  holding  up  a necklace  or 
some  such  object  (originally,  it  may  be  supposed,  indi- 
cated by  color),  which  she  has  just  taken  from  the  jewel- 
box  held  out  by  the  standing  slave-woman.  Another 
fine  grave-relief  (Fig.  135)  may  be  introduced  here, 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


203 


Fig.  134.— Grave-Relief  of  Hegeso.  Athens,  Dipylon  Cemetery. 

though  it  perhaps  belongs  to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century  rather  than  to  the  end  of  the  fifth.  It  must 
commemorate  some  young  Athenian  cavalryman.  It 


204 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


is  characteristic  that  the  relief  ignores  his  death  and 
represents  him  in  a moment  of  victory.  Observe  that 
on  both  these  monuments  there  is  no  attempt  at  real- 
istic portraiture  and  that  on  both  we  may  trace  the 
influence  of  the  style  of  the  Parthenon  frieze. 

Among  the  other  bas-reliefs  which  show  that  influence 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  choosing  one  of  exceptional 
beauty,  the  so-called  Orpheus  relief  (Fig.  136).  This 


Fig.  135.— Attic  Grave-Relief.  Rome,  Villa  Albani. 

is  known  to  us  in  three  copies,  unless  indeed  the  Naples 
example  be  the  original.  The  story  here  set  forth  is  one 
of  the  most  touching  in  Greek  mythology.  Orpheus, 
the  Thracian  singer,  has  descended  into  Hades  in  quest 
of  his  dead  wife,  Eurydice,  and  has  so  charmed  by  his 
music  the  stern  Persephone  that  she  has  suffered  him  to 
lead  back  his  wife  to  the  upper  air,  provided  only  he 
will  not  look  upon  her  on  the  way.  But  love  has  over- 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture, 


205 


come  him.  He  has  turned  and  looked,  and  the  doom  of 
an  irrevocable  parting  is  sealed.  In  no  unseemly 


Fig.  136.— Relief  Representing  Orpheus,  Eurydice,  and  Hermes. 
Naples. 

paroxysm  of  grief,  but  tenderly,  sadly,  they  look  their 
last  at  one  another,  while  Hermes,  guide  of  departed 
spirits,  makes  gentle  signal  for  the  wife’s  return.  In  the 
chastened  pathos  of  this  scene  we  have  the  quintessence 


206 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


of  the  temper  of  Greek  art  in  dealing  with  the  fact  of 
death. 

Turning  now  from  Athens  to  Argos,  which,  though 
politically  weak,  was  artistically  the  rival  of  Athens  in 
importance,  we  find  Polyclitus  the  dominant  master 
there,  as  Phidias  was  in  the  other  city.  Polyclitus  sur- 
vived Phidias  and  may  have  been  the  younger  of  the 
two.  The  only  certain  thing  is  that  he  was  in  the 
plenitude  of  his  powers  as  late  as  420,  for  his  gold  and 
ivory  statue  of  Hera  was  made  for  a temple  built  to  re- 
place an  earlier  temple  destroyed  by  fire  in  423.  His 
principal  material  was  bronze.  As  regards  subjects,  his 
great  specialty  was  the  representation  of  youthful 
athletes.  His  reputation  in  his  own  day  and  afterwards 
was  of  the  highest  ; there  were  those  who  ranked  him 
above  Phidias.  Thus  Xenophon  represents*  an  Athenian 
as  assigning  to  Polyclitus  a preeminence  in  sculpture 
like  that  of  Homer  in  epic  poetry  and  that  of  Sophocles 
in  tragedy  ; and  Strabof  pronounced  his  gold  and  ivory 
statues  in  the  Temple  of  Hera  near  Argos  the  finest  in 
artistic  merit  among  all  such  works,  though  inferior  to 
those  of  Phidias  m size  and  costliness.  But  probably  the 
more  usual  verdict  was  that  reported  by  Quintilian,  J 
which,  applauding  as  unrivaled  his  rendering  of  the 
human  form,  found  his  divinities  lacking  in  majesty. 

In  view  of  the  exalted  rank  assigned  to  Polyclitus  by 
Greek  and  Roman  judgment,  his  identifiable  works  are 
a little  disappointing.  His  Doryphorus,  a bronze 
figure  of  a young  athlete  holding  a spear  such  as  was 
used  in  the  pentathlon  ( cf.  page  168),  exists  in  numerous 
copies.  The  Naples  copy  (Fig.  137),  found  in  Pompeii 


* Memorabilia  I.,  4,  3 (written  about  390  B.  C.). 
f VIII.,  page  372  (written  about  18  A.  D.). 

X De  Institutione  Oratoria  XII.,  io,  7 (written  about  90  A.  D.). 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


207 


in  1797,  is  the  best  preserved,  being  substantially 
antique  throughout,  but  is  of  indifferent  workmanship. 
The  young  man,  of 
massive  build, 
stands  supporting 
his  weight  on  the 
right  leg  ; the  left 
is  bent  backward 
from  the  knee, 
the  foot  touching 
the  ground  only 
in  front.  Thus  the 
body  is  a good  deal 
curved.  This  atti- 
tude is  an  advance 
upon  any  standing 
motive  attained 
in  the  “Tran- 
sitional period” 

(cf  page  165).  It 
was  much  used  by 
Polyclitus,  and  is 
one  of  the  marks 
by  which  statues 
of  his  may  be 
recognized.  The 
head  of  the  Dory- 
phorus,  as  seen 
from  the  side,  is 
more  nearly  rec- 

tangular  than  fig.  — copy  of  the  doryphorus  of  Poly- 
the  usual  Attic  CLITUS*  NaPles* 

heads  of  the  period,  e.  g .,  in  the  Parthenon  frieze.  For 
the  characteristic  face  our  best  guide  is  a bronze  copy 


‘ 208 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


of  the  head  from  Herculaneum  (Fig.  138),  to  which 
our  illustration  does  less  than  justice. 

A strong  likeness  to  the  Doryphorus  exists  in  a whole 
series  of  youthful  athletes,  which  are  therefore  with 
probability  traced  to  Polyclitus  as  their  author  or 


mspirer. 
statue  of 
Dresden, 
the  head 


Such  is  a 
a boy  in 
of  which 
is  shown 


in  Fig.  139.  One 
of  these  obviously 
allied  works  can  be 
identified  with  a 
statue  by  Polyclitus 
known  to  us  from 
our  literary  sources. 
It  is  the  so-called 
Diadumenos,  a 
youth  binding  the 
fillet  of  victory 
about  his  head. 
This  exists  in  sev- 
eral copies,  the  best 
of  which  has  been 
recently  found  on 
the  island  of  Delos  and  is  not  yet  published. 

An  interesting  statue  of  a different  order,  very  often 
attributed  to  Polyclitus,  may  with  less  of  confidence  be 
accepted  as  his.  Our  illustration  (Fig.  140)  is  taken 
from  the  Berlin  copy  of  this  statue,  in  which  the  arms, 
pillar,  nose,  and  feet  are  modern,  but  are  guaranteed  by 
other  existing  copies.  It  is  the  figure  of  an  Amazon, 
who  has  been  wounded  in  the  right  breast.  She  leans 
upon  a support  at  her  left  side  and  raises  her  right  hand 


Fig.  138.— Bronze  Copy  of  the  Head  of  the 
Doryphorus.  Naples. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


209 


to  her  head  in  an  attitude  perhaps  intended  to  suggest 
exhaustion,  yet  hardly  suitable  to  the  position  of  the 
wound.  The  attitude  of  the  figure,  especially  the  legs, 
is  very  like  that  of  the  Doryphorus,  and  the  face  is 
thought  by  many  to  show  a family  likeness  to  his. 
There  are  three  other  types  of  Amazon  which  seem  to  be 
connected  with  this  one,  but  the  mutual  relations  of 
the  four  types  are  too  perplexing  to  be  here  discussed. 

It  is  a welcome  change  to  turn  from  copies  to 
originals.  The  American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at 
Athens  has  carried  on  excavations  (1890-95)  on  the  site 
of  the  famous  sanct- 
uary of  Hera  near 
Argos,  and  has  un- 
covered the  foun- 
dations both  of  the 
earlier  temple, 
burned  in  423,  and 
of  the  later  temple, 
in  which  stood  the 
gold  and  ivory  im- 
age by  Polyclitus, 
as  well  as  of  adjacent 
buildings.  Besides 
many  other  objects 
of  interest,  there 
have  been  brought 
to  light  several  frag- 
ments of  the  meto- 

Fig.  139— Head  of  a Boy,  after  Polyclitus. 
pes  of  the  second  Dresden.  (From  Furtwangler,  “ Meis- 

r terwerke,”  PI.  XXVII.) 

temple,  which,  to- 
gether with  a few  fragments  from  the  same  source  found 
earlier,  form  a precious  collection  of  materials  for  the 
study  of  the  Argive  school  of  sculpture  of  about  420. 


210 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Still  more  interesting,  at  least 


to  such  as  are  not 
specialists,  is  a head 
which  was  found  on 
the  same  site  (Fig. 
141),  and  which,  to 
judge  by  its  style, 
must  date  from  the 
same  period.  It  is 
a good  illustration 
of  the  uncertainty 
which  besets  the  at- 
tempt to  classify 
extant  Greek  sculp- 
tures into  local 
schools  that  this 
head  has  been 
claimed  with  equal 
confidence  as  Ar- 
give*  and  as  Attic 
in  style.  In  truth, 
Argive  and  Attic  art 
had  so  acted  and 
reacted  upon  one 
another  that  it  is 
small  wonder  if  their 
productions  are  in 
some  cases  indis- 
tinguishable by  us. 

The  last  remark 
applies  also  to  the 
bronze  statue  shown 
in  Fig.  142,  which 
is  believed  by  high  authorities  to  be  an  original  Greek 


Fig.  140. — Wounded  Amazon,  perhaps  after 
Polyclitus.  Berlin. 


* So  by  Professor  Charles  Waldstein,  who  directed  the  excavations. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


21 1 


work  and  which  has  been  claimed  both  for  Athens  and 
for  Argos.  The  standing  position,  while  not  identical 
with  that  of  the  Doryphorus,  the  Diadumenos,  and  the 
wounded  Amazon,  is  strikingly  similar,  as  is  also  the 


Fig.  141.— Head  from  the  Argive  Herjeum. 

Athens,  National  Museum.  (From  “ Excavations  of  the  American 
School  of  Athens  at  the  Heraion  of  Argos,  1892, ” PI.  V.) 

form  of  the  head.  At  all  events,  the  statue  is  a fine  ex- 
ample of  apparently  unstudied  ease,  of  that  consum- 
mate art  which  conceals  itself. 

The  only  sculptor  of  the  fifth  century  who  is  at  once 


212 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


known  to  us  from  literary  tradition  and  represented 
by  an  authenticated  and  original  work  is  Paeonius  of 

Mende  in  Thrace. 
He  was  an  artist  of 
secondary  rank,  if 
we  may  judge  from 
the  fact  that  his 
name  occurs  only  in 
Pausanias ; but  in 
the  brilliant  period 
of  Greek  history 
even  secondary 
artists  were  capable 
of  work  which  less 
fortunate  ages  could 
not  rival.  Pausa- 
nias mentions  a Vic- 
tory by  Paeonius  at 
Olympia,  a votive 
offering  of  the  Mes- 
senians  for  successes 
gained  in  war.  Por- 
tions of  the  pedestal 
of  this  statue  with 
the  dedicatory  in- 
scription and  the 
artist’s  signature 
were  found  on  De- 

Fig.  142. — The  « Idolino.”  cember  20,  1875,  at 

Florence,  Archaeological  Museum.  beginning  of 

the  German  excavations,  and  the  mutilated  statue  itself 
on  the  following  day  (Fig.  143).  A restoration  of  the 
figure  by  a German  sculptor  (Fig.  144)  may  be  trusted 
for  nearly  everything  but  the  face.  The  goddess  is 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


213 


represented  in  descending  flight.  Poised  upon  a trian- 
gular pedestal  about  thirty  feet  high,  she  seems  all 
but  independent  of  support.  Her  draperies,  blown  by 
the  wind,  form  a background  for  her  figure.  An  eagle 
at  her  feet  suggests 
the  element  through 
which  she  moves. 

Never  was  a more 
audacious  design 
executed  in  marble. 

Yet  it  does  not  im- 
press us  chiefly  as  a 
tour  de  force.  The 
beholder  forgets  the 
triumph  over  mate- 
rial difficulties  in  the 
sense  of  buoyancy, 
speed,  and  grace 
which  the  figure  in- 
spires. Pausanias 
records  that  the 
Messenians  of  his 
day  believed  the 
statue  to  commem- 
orate an  event  which 
happened  in  425, 
while  he  himself 

, . Fig.  143.— Victory  of  P/eonius.  Olympia. 

preferred  to  con- 
nect it  with  an  event  of  453.  The  inscription  on  the 
pedestal  is  indecisive  on  this  point.  It  runs  in  these 
terms:  “The  Messenians  and  Naupactians  dedicated 

[this  statue]  to  the  Olympian  Zeus,  as  a tithe  [of  the 
spoils]  from  their  enemies.  Paeonius  of  Mende  made  it; 
and  he  was  victorious  [over  his  competitors]  in  making 


214  A History  of  Greek  Art . 


the  acroteria  for  the  temple.”  The  later  of  the  two 
dates  mentioned  by  Pausanias  has  been  generally  ac- 


Fig.  144.— Victory  of  P^eonius,  Restored. 
(From  Botticher,  “ Olympia,”  PI.  XIII.) 


cepted,  though  not  without  recent  protest.  This  would 
give  about  the  year  423  for  the  completion  and  erection 
of  this  statue. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  GREAT  AGE  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE.  SECOND 
PERIOD  : 4OO-323  B.  C. 

In  the  fourth  century  art  became  even  more  cosmo- 
politan than  before.  The  distinctions  between  local 
schools  were  nearly  effaced  and  the  question  of  an 
artist’s  birthplace  or  residence  ceases  to  have  much  im- 
portance. Athens,  however,  maintained  her  artistic  pre- 
eminence through  the  first  half  or  more  of  the  century. 
Several  of  the  most  eminent  sculptors  of  the  period  were 
certainly  or  probably  Athenians,  and  others  appear  to 
have  made  Athens  their  home  for  a longer  or  shorter 
time.  It  is  therefore  common  to  speak  of  a “ younger 
Attic  school,”  whose  members  would  include  most  of  the 
notable  sculptors  of  this  period.  What  the  tendencies 
of  the  times  were  will  best  be  seen  by  studying  the  most 
eminent  representatives  of  this  group  or  school. 

The  first  great  name  to  meet  us  is  that  of  Scopas  of 
Paros.  His  artistic  career  seems  to  have  begun  early  in 
the  fourth  century,  for  he  was  the  architect  of  a temple 
of  Athena  at  Tegea  in  Arcadia  which  was  built  to  replace 
one  destroyed  by  fire  in  395-4.  He  was  active  as  late 
as  the  middle  of  the  century,  being  one  of  four  sculptors 
engaged  on  the  reliefs  of  the  Mausoleum  or  funeral 
monument  of  Maussollus,  satrap  of  Caria,  who  died  in 
351-0,  or  perhaps  two  years  earlier.  That  is  about  all 
we  know  of  his  life,  for  it  is  hardly  more  than  a conjec- 
ture that  he  took  up  his  abode  in  Athens  for  a term  of 


21 6 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


years.  The  works  of  his  hands  were  widely  distributed 
in  Greece  proper  and  on  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor. 

Until  lately  nothing  very  definite  was  known  of  the 
style  of  Scopas.  While  numerous  statues  by  him,  all 
representing  divinities  or  other  imaginary  beings,  are 
mentioned  in  our  literary  sources,  only  one  of  these  is 
described  in  such  a way  as  to  give  any  notion  of  its 
artistic  character.  This  was  a Maenad,  or  female  at- 
tendant of  the  god  Bacchus,  who  was  represented  in  a 
frenzy  of  religious  excitement.  The  theme  suggests  a 
strong  tendency  on  the  part  of  Scopas  toward  emotional 
expression,  but  this  inference  does  not  carry  us  very  far. 

The  study  of  Scopas  has  entered  upon  a new  stage 
since  some  fragments  of  sculpture  belonging  to  the 

Temple  of  Athena  at 
Tegea  have  become 
known.  The  presump- 
tion is  that,  as  Scopas 
was  the  architect  of  the 
building,  he  also  de- 
signed, if  he  did  not 
execute,  the  pediment- 
sculptures.  If  this  be 
true,  then  we  have  at 
last  authentic,  though 
scanty,  evidence  of  his 
style.  The  fragments 
thus  far  discovered  con- 
sist of  little  more  than 
two  human  heads  and  a 
boar’s  head.  One  of  the 
human  heads  is  here  reproduced  (Fig.  145).  Sadly 
mutilated  as  it  is,  is  has  become  possible  by  its  help  and 
that  of  its  fellow  to  recognize  with  great  probability  the 


Fig.  145.— Head  from  Tegea. 
Athens,  National  Museum. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


217 


authorship  of  Scopas  in  a whole  group  of  allied  works. 
Not  to  dwell  on  anatomical  details,  which  need  casts  for 
their  proper  illustration,  the  obvious  characteristic  mark 
of  Scopadean  heads  is  a tragic  intensity  of  expression 
unknown  to  earlier  Greek  art.  It  is  this  which  makes 
the  Tegea  heads  so 
impressive  in  spite 
of  the  ‘ ‘ rude  wast- 
ing of  old  Time.” 

The  magnificent 
head  of  Meleager  in 
the  garden  of  the 
Villa  Medici  in 
Rome  (Fig.  146) 
shows  this  same 
quality.  A fiery 
eagerness  of  temper 
animates  the  mar- 
ble, and  a certain 
pathos,  as  if  born  of 
a consciousness  of 
approaching  doom. 

So  masterly  is  the 

workmanship  here,  Fig.  i46._Head  of  Meleager. 

cr>  nt-fprlAA  rpmnvprl  Rome,  Villa  Medici.  (From  the  Antike  Denk - 
bU  ULLCIiy  rcmuveu  maler,  I.,  PI.  XL.) 

from  the  mechan- 
ical, uninspired  manner  of  Roman  copyists,  that  this 
head  has  been  claimed  as  an  original  from  the  hand  of 
Scopas,  and  so  it  may  well  be.  Something  of  the  same 
character  belongs  to  a head  of  a goddess  in  Athens, 
shown  in  Fig.  147. 

Fig.  148  introduces  us  to  another  tendency  of  fourth 
century  art.  The  group  represents  Eirene  and  Plutus 
(Peace  and  Plenty).  It  is  in  all  probability  a copy  of  a 


2l8 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


bronze  work  by  Cephisodotus,  which  stood  in  Athens 
and  was  set  up,  it  is  conjectured,  soon  after  375,  the 
year  in  which  the  worship  of  Eirene  was  officially  estab- 
lished in  Athens.  The  head  of  the  child  is  antique,  but 
does  not  belong  to  the  figure ; copies  of  the  child  with 

the  true  head  ex- 
ist in  Athens  and 
Dresden.  The 
principal  modern 
parts  are  : the 
right  arm  of  the 
goddess  (which 
should  hold  a 
scepter),  her  left 
hand  with  the 
vase,  and  both 
arms  of  the  child; 
in  place  of  the 
vase  there  should 
be  a small  horn 
of  plenty,  resting 
on  the  child’s  left 
arm.  The  senti- 
ment of  this 
group  is  such  as 
we  have  not  met 

Fig.  147. — Head  of  a Goddess.  before.  The 

Athens,  National  Museum.  , 

tenderness  ex- 
pressed by  Eirene’ s posture  is  as  characteristic  of  the 
new  era  as  the  intensity  of  look  in  the  head  from  Tegea. 

Cephisodotus  was  probably  a near  relative  of  a much 
greater  sculptor,  Praxiteles,  perhaps  his  father.  Prax- 
iteles is  better  known  to  us  than  any  other  Greek  artist. 
For  we  have,  to  begin  with,  one  authenticated  original 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


219 


statue  from  his  hand,  besides  three  fourths  of  a bas-relief 
probably  executed  under  his  direction.  In  the  second 
place,  we  can 
gather  from 
our  literary 
sources  a cat- 
a 1 o g u e of 
toward  fifty  of 
his  works,  a 
larger  list  than 
can  be  made 
out  for  any 
other  sculptor. 

Moreover,  of 
several  pieces 
we  get  really 
enlightening 
descriptions, 
and  there  are 
in  addition  one 
or  two  valua- 
ble general 
comments  on 
his  style.  Fi- 
nally two  of  his 
statues  that 
are  mentioned 
in  literature 
can  be  identi- 
fied with  suf- 
ficient certain-  FIG.  148.— Eirene  and  Plutus.  Munich.  . 

ty  in  copies. 

The  basis  of  judgment  is  thus  wide  enough  to  warrant  us 
in  bringing  numerous  other  works  into  relation  with  him. 


220 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


About  his  life, 
however,  we 
know,  as  in  other 
cases,  next  to 
nothing.  He  was 
an  Athenian  and 
must  have  been 
somewhere  near 
the  age  of  Sco- 
pas,  though 
seemingly  rather 
younger.  Pliny 
gives  the  hun- 
dred and  fourth 
Olympiad  (370- 
66)  as  the  date 
at  which  he 
flourished,  but 
this  was  probably 
about  the  begin- 
ning of  his  artistic 
career.  Only  one 
anecdote  is  told 
of  him  which  is 
worth  repeating 
here.  When 
asked  what  ones 
among  his  mar- 
ble statues  he 
rated  highest  he 
answered  that 
those  which 
Nicias  had  tinted 
were  the  best. 


Fig.  149.— Hermes,  by  Praxiteles.  Olympia. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


221 


Nicias  was  an  eminent  painter  of  the  period  (see  page 
282,  foot-note). 

The  place  of  honor  in  any  treatment  of  Praxiteles 


Fig.  150. — Head  and  Body  of  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles.  Olympia. 

must  be  given  to  the  Hermes  with  the  infant  Dionysus 
on  his  arm  (Figs.  149,  150).  This  statue  was  found  on 
May  8,  1877,  *n  the  Temple  of  Hera  at  Olympia,  lying 
in  front  of  its  pedestal.  Here  it  had  stood  when  Pau- 


222 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


sanias  saw  it  and  recorded  that  it  was  the  work  of 
Praxiteles.  The  legs  of  Hermes  below  the  knees  have 
been  restored  in  plaster  (only  the  right  foot  being 
antique),  and  so  have  the  arms  of  Dionysus.  Except 
for  the  loss  of  the  right  arm  and  the  lower  legs,  the 
figure  of  Hermes  is  in  admirable  preservation,  the  surface 
being  uninjured.  Some  notion  of  the  luminosity  of  the 
Parian  marble  may  be  gained  from  Fig.  150. 

Hermes  is  taking  the  new-born  Dionysus  to  the 
Nymphs  to  be  reared  by  them.  Pausing  on  his  way,  he 
has  thrown  his  mantle  over  a convenient  tree-trunk  and 
leans  upon  it  with  the  arm  that  holds  the  child.  In  his 
closed  left  hand  he  doubtless  carried  his  herald’s  wand  ; 
the  lost  right  hand  must  have  held  up  some  object — 
bunch  of  grapes  or  what-not — for  the  entertainment  of 
the  little  god.  The  latter  is  not  truthfully  proportioned ; 
in  common  with  almost  all  sculptors  before  the  time  of 
Alexander,  Praxiteles  seems  to  have  paid  very  little 
attention  to  the  characteristic  forms  of  infancy.  But  the 
Hermes  is  of  unapproachable  perfection.  His  symmet- 
rical figure,  which  looks  slender  in  comparison  with  the 
Doryphorus  of  Polyclitus,  is  athletic  without  exaggera- 
tion, and  is  modeled  with  faultless  skill.  The  attitude, 
with  the  weight  supported  chiefly  by  the  right  leg  and 
left  arm,  gives  to  the  body  a graceful  curve  which 
Praxiteles  loved.  It  is  the  last  stage  in  the  long  de- 
velopment of  an  easy  standing  pose.  The  head  is  of 
the  round  Attic  form,  contrasting  with  the  squarer 
Peloponnesian  type  ; the  face  a fine  oval.  The  lower 
part  of  the  forehead  between  the  temples  is  prominent ; 
the  nose  not  quite  straight,  but  slightly  arched  at  the 
middle.  The  whole  expression  is  one  of  indescribable 
refinement  and  radiance.  The  hair,  short  and  curly, 
illustrates  the  possibilities  of  marble  in  the  treatment  of 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


223 


that  feature  ; in  place  of  the  wiry  appearance  of  hair  in 
bronze  we  find  here  a slight  roughness  of  surface, 
suggestive  of  the  soft  texture  of  actual  hair  ( cf.  Fig. 
146  and  contrast  Fig.  138).  The  drapery  that  falls 
over  the  tree-trunk  is  treated  with  a degree  of  elabora- 
tion and  richness  which  does  not  occur  in  fifth  century 
work  ; but  beautiful  as  it  is,  it  is  kept  subordinate  and 
does  not  unduly  attract  our  attention. 

For  us  the  Hermes  stands  alone  and  without  a rival. 
The  statue,  however,  did  not  in  antiquity  enjoy  any 
extraordinary  celebrity,  and  is  in  fact  not  even  men- 
tioned in  extant  literature  except  by  Pausanias.  The 
most  famous  work  of  Praxiteles  was  the  Aphrodite  of 
Cnidus  in  southwestern  Asia  Minor.  This  was  a 
temple-statue  ; yet  the  sculptor,  departing  from  the 
practice  of  earlier  times,  did  not  scruple  to  represent 
the  goddess  as  nude.  With  the  help  of  certain  imperial 
coins  of  Cnidus  this  Aphrodite  has  been  identified  in  a 
great  number  of  copies.  She  is  in  the  act  of  dropping 
her  garment  from  her  left  hand  in  preparation  for  a 
bath  ; she  supports  herself  chiefly  by  the  right  leg,  and 
the  body  has  a curve  approaching  that  of  the  Hermes, 
though  here  no  part  of  the  weight  is  thrown  upon  the 
arm.  The  subject  is  treated  with  consummate  delicacy, 
far  removed  from  the  sensuality  too  usual  in  a later  age ; 
and  yet,  when  this  embodiment  of  Aphrodite  is  com- 
pared with  fifth  century  ideals,  it  must  be  recognized  as 
illustrating  a growing  fondness  on  the  part  of  sculptor 
and  public  for  the  representation  of  physical  charm. 
Not  being  able  to  offer  a satisfactory  illustration  of  the 
whole  statue,  I have  chosen  for  reproduction  a copy  of 
the  head  alone  (Fig.  151).  It  will  help  the  reader  to 
divine  the  simple  loveliness  of  the  original. 

Pliny  mentions  among  the  works  in  bronze  by  Prax- 


224 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


iteies  a youthful  Apollo,  called  “ Sauroctonos”  (Lizard- 
slayer).  Fig.  152  is  a marble  copy  of  this,  considerably 
restored.  The  god,  conceived  in  the  likeness  of  a 
beautiful  boy,  leans  against  a tree,  preparing  to  stab  a 

lizard  with  an  arrow, 
which  should  be  in 
the  right  hand.  The 
graceful,  leaning 
pose  and  the  soft 
beauty  of  the  youth- 
ful face  and  flesh  are 
character is  ti cal  ly 
Praxitelean. 

Two  or  three 
satyrs  by  Praxiteles 
are  mentioned  by 
Greek  and  Roman 
writers,  and  an  an- 
ecdote is  told  by 
Pausanias  which  im- 
plies that  one  o f 
them  enjoyed  an  ex- 
ceptional fame.  Un- 
fortunately they  are 
not  described  ; but  among  the  many  satyrs  to  be  found 
in  museums  of  ancient  sculpture  there  are  two  types  in 
which  the  style  of  Praxiteles,  as  we  have  now  learned  to 
know  it,  is  so  strongly  marked  that  we  can  hardly  go 
wrong  in  ascribing  them  both  to  him.  Both  exist  in 
numerous  copies.  Our  illustration  of  the  first  (Fig. 
153)  is  taken  from  the  copy  of  which  Hawthorne  wrote 
so  subtle  a description  in  “The  Marble  Faun.”  The 
statue  is  somewhat  restored,  but  the  restoration  is  not 
open  to  doubt,  except  as  regards  the  single  pipe  held  in 


Fig.  151. — Copy  of  the  Head  of  the  Aphro- 
dite of  Cnidus.  Berlin,  in  private  possession. 
(From  th zAntike  Denkmtiler , I.,  page  30.) 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


225 


the  right  hand.  No  animal  characteristic  is  to  be  found 
here  save  the  pointed  ears  ; the  face,  however,  retains  a 
suggestion  of  the  traditional  satyr-type.  ‘ ‘ The  whole 
statue,  unlike  anything  else  that  ever  was  wrought  in 
that  severe  material  of  marble,  conveys  the  idea  of  an 
amiable  and  sensual  creature — easy,  mirthful,  apt  for 
jollity,  yet  not  incapable  of  being  touched  by  pathos.”* 

In  the  Palermo 
copy  of  the  other 
Praxitelean  satyr 
(Fig.  154)  the  right 
arm  is  modern,  but 
the  restoration  is 
substantially  cor- 
rect. The  face  of 
this  statue  has 
purely  Greek  fea- 
tures, and  only  the 
pointed  ears  remain 
to  betray  the  mix- 
ture of  animal  na- 
ture with  the  human 
form.  The  original 
was  probably  of 
bronze. 

With  Fig.  155  we 
revert  from  copies 
to  an  original  work. 

This  is  one  of  three 
slabs  which  proba-  „ A c 

r Fig.  152.— Copy  of  the  Apollo  Sauroctonos. 

bly  decorated  the  Rome»  Vatican  Museum. 

pedestal  of  a group  by  Praxiteles  representing  Apollo, 

Leto,  and  Artemis  ; a fourth  slab,  needed  to  complete 

* Hawthorne,  “ The  Marble  Faun,”  Vol.  I.,  Chapter  I, 


226 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


the  series,  has  not 
been  found.  The 
presumption  is 
strong  that  these 
reliefs  were  exe- 
cuted under  the 
direction  of  Prax- 
iteles, perhaps 
from  his  design. 
The  subject  of  one 
slab  is  the  musical 
contest  between 
Apollo  and  Mar- 
syas,  while  the 
other  two  bear 
figures  of  Muses. 
The  latter  are 
posed  and  draped 
with  that  delightful 
grace  of  which 
Praxiteles  was 
master,  and  with 
which  he  seems  to 
have  inspired  his 
pupils.  The  ex- 
ecution, however, 
is  not  quite  fault- 
less, as  witness 
the  distortion  in 
the  right  lower  leg 
of  the  seated  Muse 
in  Fig.  155 — other- 
wise an  exquisite 

Fig.  153.— Leaning  Satyr.  Rome,  Capitoline 

Museum.  figure. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


227 


Among  the  many  other  works  that  have  been  claimed 
for  Praxiteles  on  grounds  of  style,  I venture  to  single 
out  one  (Fig. 

156).  The  illus- 
tration is  taken 
from  one  of  sev- 
eral copies  of  a 
lost  original, 
which,  if  it  was 
not  by  Praxiteles 
himself,  was  by 
some  one  who 
had  marvelously 
caught  his  spirit. 

That  it  represents 
the  goddess  Ar- 
temis we  may 
probably  infer 
from  the  short 
chiton,  an  ap- 
propriate gar- 
ment often  worn 
by  the  divine 
huntress,  but  not 
by  human  maid- 
ens. Otherwise 
the  goddess  has 
no  conventional 
attribute  to  mark 
her  divinity.  She 

is  just  a beautiful  FlG‘  I54-— ; Satyr  Pouring  Wine.  Palermo, 
girl,  engaged  in  fastening  her  mantle  together  with  a 
brooch.  In  this  way  of  conceiving  a goddess,  we  see 
the  same  spirit  that  created  the  Apollo  Sauroctonos. 


228 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


The  genius  of  Praxiteles,  as  thus  far  revealed  *to  us, 
was  preeminently  sunny,  drawn  toward  what  is  fair  and 
graceful  and  untroubled,  and  ignoring  what  is  tragic  in 
human  existence.  This  view  of  him  is  confirmed  by 
what  is  known  from  literature  of  his  subjects.  The  list 
includes  five  figures  of  Aphrodite,  three  or  four  of  Eros, 
two  of  Apollo,  two  of  Artemis,  two  of  Dionysus,  two  or 
three  of  satyrs,  two  of  the  courtesan  Phryne,  and  one  of 


Fig.  155.— Relief  from  Mantinea.  Athens,  National  Museum. 


a beautiful  human  youth  binding  a fillet  about  his  hair, 
but  no  work  whose  theme  is  suffering  or  death  is 
definitely  ascribed  to  him.  It  is  strange  therefore  to 
find  Pliny  saying  that  it  was  a matter  of  doubt  in  his 
time  whether  a group  of  the  dying  children  of  Niobe 
which  stood  in  a temple  of  Apollo  in  Rome  was  by 
Scopas  or  Praxiteles.  It  is  commonly  supposed,  though 
without  decisive  proof,  that  certain  statues  of  Niobe  and 
her  children  which  exist  in  Florence  and  elsewhere  are 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


229 


copied  from  the  group  of  which  Pliny  speaks.  The 
story  was  that  Niobe  vaunted  herself  before  Leto 
because  she  had  seven  sons 
and  seven  daughters,  while 
Leto  had  borne  only  Apollo 
and  Artemis.  For  her  pre- 
sumption all  her  children 
were  stricken  down  by 
the  arrows  of  Apollo  and 
Artemis.  This  punishment 
is  the  subject  of  the  group. 

Fig-  157  gives  the  central 
figures  ; they  are  Niobe 
herself  and  her  youngest 
daughter,  who  has  fled  to 
her  for  protection.  The 
Niobe  has  long  been 
famous  as  an  embodiment 
of  haughtiness,  maternal 
love,  and  sharp  distress. 

But  much  finer  in  compo- 
sition, to  my  thinking,  is 
Fig.  158.  In  this  son  of 
Niobe  the  end  of  the  right 
arm  and  the  entire  left  arm 
are  modern.  Originally 
this  youth  was  grouped 
with  a sister  who  has  been 
wounded  unto  death.  She 
has  sunk  upon  the  ground 
and  her  right  arm  hangs  fig.  156. — Artemis,  called  the  Di- 
limply  over  his  left  knee,  ANA  OF  Gawi*  Paris’  Louvre* 
thus  preventing  his  garment  from  falling.  His  left  arm 
clasps  her  and  he  seeks  ineffectually  to  protect  her, 


230 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


That  this  is  the  true  restoration  is  known  from  a copy 
in  the  Vatican  of  the  wounded  girl  with  a part  of  the 
brother.  Except  for  this  son  of  Niobe  the  Florentine 
figures  are  not  worthy  of  their  old-time  reputation.  As 
for  their  authorship,  Praxiteles  seems  out  of  the  ques: 
tion.  The  subject  is  in  keeping  with  the  genius  of  Sco- 
pas,  but  it  is  safer  not  to  associate  the«  group  with  any 
individual  name. 

This  reserve  is  the  more  advisable  because  Scopas  and 

Praxiteles  are 
but  two  stars, 
by  far  the 
brightest,  to 
be  sure,  in  a 
brilliant  constel- 
lation  of  con- 
temporary art- 
ists. For  the 
others  it  is  im- 
possible to  do 
much  more 
here  than  to 
mention  the 
most  important 
names : Leocha- 
res  and  Timo- 
theus,  whose 
civic  ties  are 
unknown,  Bry- 
axis  and  Silani- 
on  of  Athens, 
and  Euphranor 
of  Corinth,  the  last  equally  famous  as  painter  and  sculp- 
tor. These  artists  seem  to  be  emerging  a little  from 


Fig.  157. — Niobe  and  a Daughter  of  Niobe. 
Florence,  Uffizi. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


231 


the  darkness  that  has  enveloped  them,  and  it  may  be 
hoped  that  discoveries  of  new  material  and  further  study 
of  already  existing  material  will  reveal  them  to  us  with 
some  degree  of 
clearness  and  cer- 
tainty. A good 
illustration  of  how 
new  acquisitions 
may  help  us  is 
afforded  by  a 
group  of  fragmen- 
tary sculptures 
found  in  the  sanc- 
tuary of  Asclepius 
near  Epidauros  in 
the  years  1882-84 
and  belonging  to 
the  pediments  of 
the  principal  tem- 
ple. An  inscrip- 
tion was  found  on 
the  same  site  which 
records  the  ex- 
penses incurred  in 
building  this  tem- 
ple, and  one  item  in  it  makes  it  probable  that  Timo- 
theus,  the  sculptor  above  mentioned,  furnished  the  mod- 
els after  which  the  pediment-sculptures  were  executed. 
The  largest  and  finest  fragment  of  these  sculptures  that 
has  been  found  is  given  in  Fig.  159.  It  belongs  to  the 
western  pediment,  which  seems  to  have  contained  a 
battle  of  Greeks  and  Amazons.  The  Amazon  of  our 
illustration,  mounted  upon  a rearing  horse,  is  about  to 
bring  down  her  lance  upon  a fallen  foe.  The  action  is 


Fig.  158. — A Son  of  Niobe.  Florence,  Uffizi. 


232 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


rendered  with  splendid  vigor.  The  date  of  this  temple 
and  its  sculptures  may  be  put  somewhere  about  375. 

Reference  was  made  above  (page  215)  to  the  Mauso- 
leum. The  artists  engaged  on  the  sculptures  which 
adorned  that  magnificent  monument  were,  according  to 
Pliny,  Scopas,  Leochares,  Bryaxis,  and  Timotheus.* 

There  seem  to 
have  been  at 
least  three 
sc  ulptured 
friezes,  but  of 
only  one  have 
considerable  re- 
mains been  pre- 
served ( cf.  Fig. 
65).  This  has 
for  its  subject  a 
battle  of  Greeks 
and  Amazons,  a 
theme  which 
Greek  sculptors 
and  painters 
never  wearied 
of  reproducing. 
The  preserved 
portions  of  this 
frieze  amount 
in  all  to  about 
eighty  feet,  but  the  slabs  are  not  consecutive.  Figs.  160 
and  1 61  give  two  of  the  best  pieces.  The  design  falls 
into  groups  of  two  or  three  combatants,  and  these  groups 
are  varied  with  inexhaustible  fertility  and  liveliness  of 

* The  tradition  on  this  point  was  not  quite  uniform.  Vitruvius  names  Prax- 
iteles as  the  fourth  artist,  but  adds  that  some  believed  that  Timotheus  also  was 
engaged. 


Fig.  159.— Mounted  Amazon. 
Athens,  National  Museum. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


^33 


imagination.  Among  the  points  which  distinguish  this 
from  a work  of  the  fifth  century  may  be  noted  the 


Fig.  160. — Slab  of  Mausoleum  Frieze.  London,  British  Museum. 

slenderer  forms  of  men  and  women  and  the  more  ex- 
pressive faces.  The  existing  slabs,  moreover,  differ 
among  themselves  in  style  and  merit,  and  an  earnest  at- 


Fig.  161. — Slab  of  Mausoleum  Frieze.  London,  British  Museum. 

tempt  has  been  made  to  distribute  them  among  the  four 
artists  named  by  Pliny,  but  without  conclusive  results. 


234 


* A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Since  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  was  brought  to  Jight 
at  Olympia  there  has  been  no  discovery  of  Greek 
sculpture  so  dazzling  in  its  splendor  as  that  made  in 
1887  on  ^e  site  of  the  necropolis  of  Sidon  in  Phenicia. 
There,  in  a group  of  communicating  subterranean 
chambers,  were  found,  along  with  an  Egyptian  sarcopha- 
gus, sixteen  others  of  Greek  workmanship,  four  of  them 
adorned  with  reliefs  of  extraordinary  beauty.  They  are 


Fig.  162.— Sarcophagus  of  “ The  Mourning  Women.”  Constantinople. 

all  now  in  the  recently  created  Museum  of  Constanti- 
nople, which  has  thus  become  one  of  the  places  of  fore- 
most consequence  to  every  student  and  lover  of  Greek 
art.  The  sixteen  sarcophagi  are  of  various  dates,  from 
early  in  the  fifth  to  late  in  the  fourth  century.  The  one 
shown  in  Fig.  162  may  be  assigned  to  about  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.  Its  form  is  adapted  from  that  of 
an  Ionic  temple.  Between  the  columns  are  standing  or 
seated  women,  their  faces  and  attitudes  expressing  vary- 
ing degrees  of  grief.  Our  illustration  is  on  too  small  a 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


235 


scale  to  convey  any  but  the  dimmest  impression  of  the 
dignity  and  beauty  of  this  company  of  mourners. 
Above,  on  a sort  of  balustrade,  may  be  seen  a funeral 
procession. 

The  old  Temple  of  Artemis  at  Ephesus  ff.  page  140) 
was  set  on  fire  and  reduced  to  ruins  by  an  incendiary  in 
356  B.  C. , on  the  very  night,  it  is  said,  in  which 
Alexander  the  Great  was  born.  The  Ephesians  rebuilt 
the  temple  on  a much  more  magnificent  scale,  making 
of  it  the  most  extensive  and  sumptuous  columnar  edifice 
ever  erected  by  a Greek  architect.  How  promptly  the 
work  was  begun  we  do  not  know,  but  it  lasted  into  the 
reign  of  Alexander,  so  that  its  date  may  be  given 
approximately  as  350-30.  Through  the  indefatigable 
perseverance  of  Mr.  J.  T.  Wood,  who  conducted  ex- 
cavations at  Ephesus  for  the  British  Museum  in  1863-74, 
the  site  of  this  temple,  long  unknown,  was  at  last 
discovered  and  its  remains  unearthed.  Following  the 
example  of  the  sixth  century  temple,  it  had  the  lowest 
drums  of  a number  of  its  columns  covered  with  relief 
sculpture.  Of  the  half  dozen  recovered  specimens  Fig. 
163  shows  the  finest.  The  subject  is  an  unsolved  riddle. 
The  most  prominent  figure  in  the  illustration  is  the  god 
Hermes,  as  the  herald’s  staff  in  his  right  hand  shows. 
The  female  figures  to  right  and  left  of  him  are  good 
examples  of  that  grace  in  pose  and  drapery  which  was 
characteristic  of  Gr^ek  sculpture  in  the  age  of  Scopas 
and  Praxiteles. 

The  most  beautiful  Greek  portrait  statue  that  we 
possess  is  the  Lateran  Sophocles  (Fig.  164).  The 
figure  has  numerous  small  restorations,  including  the 
feet  and  the  box  of  manuscript  rolls.  That  Sophocles, 
the  tragic  poet,  is  represented,  is  known  from  the  like- 
ness of  the  head  to  a bust  inscribed  with  his  name.  He 


236  A History  0/  Greek  Art. 


died  in  406  B.  C.  The  style  of  our  statue,  however, 
points  to  an  original  (if  it  be  not  itself  the  original)  of 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  There  were 
probably  in  existence  at  this  time  authentic  likenesses  of 
the  poet,  on  which  the  sculptor  based  his  work.  The 


Fig.  163.— Sculptured  Drum  of  Column  from  Ephesus. 

London,  British  Museum. 

attitude  of  the  figure  is  the  perfection  of  apparent  ease, 
but  in  reality  of  skilful  contrivance  to  secure  a due  bal- 
ance of  parts  and  variety  and  grace  of  line.  The  one 
garment,  drawn  closely  about  the  person,  illustrates  the 
inestimable  good  fortune  enjoyed  by  the  Greek  sculptor, 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


237 


in  contrast  with  the 
sculptor  of  to-day,  in 
having  to  represent  a 
costume  so  simple,  so 
pliant,  so  capable  of 
graceful  adjustment. 

The  head,  however 
much  it  may  contain 
of  the  actual  look  of 
Sophocles,  must  be 
idealized.  To  appre- 
ciate it  properly  one 
must  remember  that 
this  poet,  though  he 
dealt  with  tragic 
themes,  was  not  wont 
to  brood  over  the  sin 
and  sorrow  and  un- 
fathomable mystery 
of  the  world,  but  was 
serene  in  his  temper 
and  prosperous  in  his 
life. 

The  colossal  head 
of  Zeus  shown  in  Fig. 

165  was  found  a hun- 
dred years  or  more 
ago  at  Otricoli,  a 
small  village  to  the 
north  of  Rome.  The 
antique  part  is  a mere 
mask  ; the  back  of 
the  head  and  the  bust 
are  modern.  The  material  is  Carrara  marble,  a fact  which 


Fig.  164.— Sophocles. 
Rome,  Lateran  Museum. 


238 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


alone  would  prove  that  the  work  was  executed  in  Italy 
and  in  the  imperial  period.  At  first  this  used  to  be  re- 
garded as  copied  from  the  Olympian  Zeus  of  Phidias 
(page  185),  but  in  the  light  of  increased  acquaintance 

with  the  style  of 
Phidias  and  his  age, 
this  attribution  has 
long  been  seen  to  be 
impossible.  The 
original  belongs 
about  at  the  end  of 
the  period  now  un- 
der review,  or  pos- 
sibly still  later. 
Although  only  a 
copy,  the  Otricoli 
Zeus  is  the  finest 
representation  we 
have  of  the  father  of 
gods  and  men.  The 
predominant  ex- 
pression is  one  of 
gentleness  and  be- 
nevolence, but  the 
lofty  brow,  trans- 
versely furrowed, 
tells  of  thought  and 
will,  and  the  leonine 
hair  of  strength. 

With  Lysippus  of  Sicyon  we  reach  the  last  name  of 
first-rate  importance  in  the  history  of  Greek  sculpture. 
There  is  the  usual  uncertainty  about  the  dates  of  his 
life,  but  it  is  certain  that  he  was  in  his  prime  during  the 
reign  of  Alexander  (336-23).  Thus  he  belongs  essen- 


Fig.  165.— Head  of  Zeus.  Rome, 
Vatican  Museum. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture. 


239 


tially  to  the  generation  succeeding  that  of  Scopas  and 
Praxiteles.  He  appears  to  have  worked  exclusively  in 
bronze  ; at  least  we  hear  of  no  work  in  marble  from  his 
hands.  He  must  have  had  a long  life.  Pliny  credits 
him  with  fifteen  hundred  statues,  but  this  is  scarcely 
credible.  His  subjects  suggest  that  his  genius  was  of 
a very  different  bent  from  that  of  Praxiteles.  No  statue 
of  Aphrodite  or  indeed  of  any  goddess  (except  the 
Muses)  is  ascribed  to  him  ; on  the  other  hand,  he  made 
at  least  four  statues  of  Zeus,  one  of  them  nearly  sixty 
feet  high,  and  at  least  four  figures  of  Heracles,  of  which 
one  was  colossal,  while  one  was  less  than  a foot  high, 
besides  groups  representing  the  labors  of  Heracles.  In 
short,  the  list  of  his  statues  of  superhuman  beings, 
though  it  does  include  an  Eros  and  a Dionysus,  looks 
as  if  he  had  no  especial  predilection  for  the  soft  loveli- 
ness of  youth,  but  rather  for  mature  and  vigorous  forms. 
He  was  famous  as  a portrait-sculptor  and  made  numer- 
ous statues  of  Alexander,  from  whom  he  received  con- 
spicuous recognition.  Naturally,  too,  he  accepted 
commissions  for  athlete  statues  ; five  such  are  mentioned 
by  Pausanias  as  existing  at  Olympia.  An  allegorical 
figure  by  him  of  Cairos  (Opportunity)  receives  lavish 
praise  from  a late  rhetorician.  Finally,  he  is  credited 
with  a statue  of  a tipsy  female  flute-player.  This 
deserves  especial  notice  as  the  first  well-assured  example 
of  a work  of  Greek  sculpture  ignoble  in  its  subject  and 
obviously  unfit  for  any  of  the  purposes  for  which  sculp- 
ture had  chiefly  existed  ff.  page  124). 

It  is  Pliny  who  puts  us  in  the  way  of  a more  direct 
acquaintance  with  this  artist  than  the  above  facts  can 
give.  He  makes  the  general  statement  that  Lysippus 
departed  from  the  canon  of  proportions  previously 
followed  (z.  e. , probably,  by  Polyclitus  and  his  imme- 


240 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


diate  followers),  making  the  head  smaller  and  the  body 
slenderer  and  “ dryer/’  and  he  mentions  a statue  by 
him  in  Rome  called  an  Apoxyomenos,  i.  e.,  an  athlete 

scraping  himself  with 
a strigil.  A copy  of 
such  a statue  was 
found  in  Rome  in 
1849  (F ig.  166). 
The  fingers  of  the 
right  hand  with  the 
inappropriate  die  are 
modern,  as  are  also 
some  additional  bits 
here  and  there.  Now 
the  coincidence  in 
subject  between  this 
statue  and  that  men- 
tioned by  Pliny  would 
not  alone  be  decisive. 
Polyclitus  also  made 
an  Apoxyomenos, 
and,  for  all  we  know, 
other  sculptors  may 
have  used  the  same 
motive.  But  the 
statue  in  question  is 
certainly  later  than 
Polyclitus,  and  its 
agreement  with  what 
Pliny  tells  us  of  the 
proportions  adopted 
by  Lysippus  is  as 
close  as  could  be  desired  (contrast  Fig.  137).  We 
therefore  need  not  scruple  to  accept  it  as  Lysippian. 


Fig.  166. — Copy  of  the  Apoxyomenos  of 
Lysippus.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum. 


The  Great  Age  of  Greek  Sculpture . 


241 


Our  young  athlete,  before  beginning  his  exercise,  had 
rubbed  his  body  with  oil  and,  if  he  was  to  wrestle,  had 
sprinkled  himself  with  sand.  Now,  his  exercise  over,  he 
is  removing  oil  and  sweat  and  dirt  with  the  instrument 
regularly  used  for  that  purpose.  His  slender  figure 
suggests  elasticity 
and  agility  rather 
than  brute  strength. 

The  face  (Fig.  167 ) 
has  not  the  radiant 
charm  which  Prax- 
iteles would  have 
given  it,  but  it  is 
both  fine  and  alert. 

The  eyes  are  deeply 
set ; the  division  of 
the  upper  from  the 
lower  forehead  is 
marked  by  a 
groove;  the  hair  lies 
in  expressive  dis- 
order.  In  the 
bronze  original  the 
tree-trunk  behind 
the  left  leg  was 
doubtless  absent,  as 
also  the  disagreeable  support  (now  broken)  which  ex- 
tended from  the  right  leg  to  the  right  fore-arm. 

The  best  authenticated  likeness  of  Alexander  the 
Great  is  a bust  in  the  Louvre  (Fig.  168)  inscribed  with 
his  name:  “Alexander  of  Macedon,  son  of  Philip.” 
The  surface  has  been  badly  corroded  and  the  nose  is 
restored.  The  work,  which  is  only  a copy,  may  go 
back  to  an  original  by  Lysippus,  though  the  evidence 


Fig.  167.— Head  of  the  Apoxyomenos. 
(From  Kopp,  “ Das  Bildniss  Alexanders,”  PI.  I.) 


242 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


for  that  belief,  a certain  resemblance  to  the  head  of 
the  Apoxyomenos,  is  hardly  as  convincing  as  one  could 
desire.  The  king  is  here  represented,  one  would 
guess,  at  the  age  of  thirty  or  thereabouts.  Now  as  he 
was  absent  from  Europe  from  the  age  of  twenty-two 

until  his  death  at 
Babylon  at  the  age 
of  thirty-three  (323 
B.  C.),  it  would 
seem  likely  that 
Lysippus,  or  who- 
ever the  sculptor 
was,  based  his  por- 
trait upon  likenesses 
taken  some  years 
earlier.  Conse- 
quently, although 
portraiture  in  the 
age  of  Alexander 
had  become  prevail- 
i n g 1 y realistic,  it 
would  be  unsafe  to 
regard  this  head  as 
a conspicuous  ex- 

Fig.  168.— Head  of  Alexander.  Paris,  Louvre,  ample  of  the  new 
(From  Kopp,  “ Das  Bildniss  Alexanders,”  PI.  I.)  r „ 

tendency.  The 
artist  probably  aimed  to  present  a recognizable  like- 
ness and  at  the  same  time  to  give  a worthy  expression 
to  the  great  conqueror’s  qualities  of  character.  If  the 
latter  object  does  not  seem  to  have  been  attained,  one 
is  free  to  lay  the  blame  upon  the  copyist  and  time. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE. 

\ i b.  c. 

The  reign  of  Alexander  began  a new  era  in  Greek 
history,  an  era  in  which  the  great  fact  was  the  dissemi- 
nation of  Greek  culture  over  wide  regions  to  which  it 
had  been  alien.  This  period,  in  which  Egypt  and 
western  Asia  were  ruled  by  men  of  Greek  or  Macedonian 
blood  and  gradually  took  on  more  or  less  of  Greek  civili- 
zation, is  often  called  the  Hellenistic  period. 

Under  the  new  political  and  social  order  new  artistic 
conditions  were  developed.  For  one  thing,  Athens  and 
the  other  old  centers  of  artistic  activity  lost  their  pre- 
eminence, while  new  centers  were  created  in  the  East. 
The  only  places  which  our  literary  sources  mention  as 
seats  of  important  schools  of  sculpture  in  the  two 
centuries  following  the  death  of  Alexander  are  Rhodes 
and  Pergamum. 

Then  again  a demand  now  grew  up  for  works  of 
sculpture  to  be  used  as  mere  ornaments  in  the  interiors 
of  palaces  and  private  houses,  as  well  as  in  public  build- 
ings and  places.  This  of  course  threw  open  the  door 
for  subjects  which  had  been  excluded  when  sculpture 
was  dominated  by  a sacred  purpose.  Sculptors  were 
now  free  to  appeal  to  the  lower  tastes  of  their  patrons. 
The  practice  of  “ art  for  art’s  sake  ” had  its  day,  and 
trivial,  comical,  ugly,  harrowing,  or  sensual  themes  were 
treated  with  all  the  resources  of  technical  skill.  In 
short,  the  position  and  purposes  of  the  art  of  sculpture 


243 


244 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


became  very  like  what  they  are  to-day.  Hence  the 
untrained  modern  student  feels  much  more  at  home  in  a 
collection  of  Hellenistic  sculpture  than  in  the  presence  of 
the  severer,  sublimer  creations  of  the  age  of  Phidias. 

It  is  by  no  means  meant  to  pass  a sweeping  condem- 
nation upon  the  productions  of  the  post-classical  period. 
Realistic  portraiture  was  now  practiced  with  great  fre- 
quency and  high  success.  Many  of  the  genre  statues 
and  decorative  reliefs  of  the  time  are  admirable  and 
delightful.  Moreover,  the  old  uses  of  sculpture  were  not 
abandoned,  and  though  the  tendency  toward  sensational- 


Fig.  169.— Three  Tanagra  Figurines.  London,  British  Museum. 


ism  was  strong,  a dignified  and  exalted  work  was  some- 
times achieved.  But,  broadly  speaking,  we  must  admit 
the  loss  of  that  “noble  simplicity  and  quiet  grandeur  ” 
— the  phrase  is  Winckelmann’s — which  stamped  the 
creations  of  the  age  of  Phidias.  Greek  sculpture  gained 
immensely  in  variety,  but  at  the  expense  of  its  elevation 
of  spirit. 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 245 


Although  this  sketch  is  devoted  principally  to  bronze 
and  marble  sculpture,  I cannot  resist  the  temptation  to 
illustrate  by  a few  examples  the  charming  little  terra- 
cotta figurines  which  have  been  found  in  such  great 
numbers  in  graves  at  Tanagra  and  elsewhere  in  Bceotia 


Fig.  170. — Three  Tanagra  Figurines.  London,  British  Museum. 

(Figs.  169,  170).  It  is  a question  whether  the  best  of 
them  were  not  produced  before  the  end  of  the  period 
covered  by  the  last  chapter.  At  all  events,  they  are 
post-Praxitelean.  The  commonest  subjects  are  standing 
or  seated  women  ; young  men,  lads,  and  children  are 
also  often  met  with.  Fig.  170  shows  another  favorite 
figure,  the  winged  Eros,  represented  as  a chubby  boy  of 
four  or  five — a conception  of  the  god  of  Love  which 
makes  its  first  appearance  in  the  Hellenistic  period. 
The  men  who  modeled  these  statuettes  were  doubtless 


Fig.  171. — The  “Alexander”  Sarcophagus.  Constantinople. 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 247 


regarded  in  their  own  day  as  very  humble  craftsmen, 
but  the  best  of  them  had  caught  the  secret  of  graceful 
poses  and  draperies,  and  the  execution  of  their  work  is 
as  delicate  as  its  conception  is  refined. 

Returning  now  to  our  proper  subject,  we  may  be- 
gin with  the  latest  and  most  magnificent  of  the  sar- 
cophagi  found  at  Sidon  (Fig.  171  ; cf \ page  234). 
This  belongs  somewhere  near  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century.  It  is  decorated  with  relief-sculpture  on  all 
four  sides  and  in  the  gables  of  the  cover.  On  the 
long  side  shown  in  our  illustration  the  subject  is  a 
battle  between  Greeks  and  Persians,  perhaps  the  battle 
of  Issus,  fought  in  333.  Alexander  the  Great,  recog- 
nizable by  the  skin  of  a lion’s  head  which  he  wears 
like  Heracles,  instead  of  a helmet,  is  to  be  seen  at 
the  extreme  left.  The  design,  which  looks  crowded 
and  confused  when  reduced  to  a small  scale,  is  in  reality 
well  arranged  and  extremely  spirited,  besides  being 
exquisitely  wrought.  But  the  crowning  interest  of  the 
work  lies  in  the  unparalleled  freshness  with  which  it 
has  kept  its  color.  Garments,  saddle-cloths,  pieces  of 
armor,  and  so  on,  are  tinted  in  delicate  colors,  and 
the  finest  details,  such  as  bow-strings,  are  perfectly 
distinct.  The  nude  flesh,  though  not  covered  with 
opaque  paint,  has  received  some  application  which 
differentiates  it  from  the  glittering  white  background, 
and  gives  it  a sort  of  ivory  hue.  The  effect  of  all  this 
color  is  thoroughly  refined,  and  the  work  is  a revelation 
of  the  beauty  of  polychromatic  sculpture. 

The  Victory  of  Samothrace  (Fig.  172)  can  also  be 
dated  at  about  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  The  fig- 
ure is  considerably  above  life-size.  It  was  found  in 
1863,  broken  into  a multitude  of  fragments,  which  have 
been  carefully  united.  There  are  no  modern  pieces,  ex- 


248 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Fig.  172.— Victory  of  Samothrace. 
Paris,  Louvre. 

posed  on  good  grounds  t 
tant  naval  victory  won  by 


cept  in  the  wings.  The 
statue  stood  on  a pedestal 
having  the  form  of  a ship’s 
prow,  the  principal  parts  of 
which  were  found  by  an 
Austrian  expedition  to 
Samothrace  in  1875. 
These  fragments  were 
subsequently  conveyed  to 
the  Louvre,  and  the  Vic- 
tory now  stands  on  her 
original  pedestal.  For  de- 
termining the  date  and  the 
proper  restoration  of  this 
work  we  have  the  fortunate 
help  of  numismatics.  Cer- 
tain silver  coins  of  Deme- 
trius Poliorcetes,  who 
reigned  306-286  B.  C., 
bear  upon  one  side  a Vic- 
tory which  agrees  closely 
with  her  of  Samothrace, 
even  to  the  great  prow- 
pedestal.  The  type  is  sup- 
3 commemorate  an  impor- 
Demetrius  over  Ptolemy  in 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture.  249 


305.  In  view,  then,  of  the  close  resemblance  between 
coin-type  and  statue,  it  seems  reasonably  certain  that 
the  Victory  was  dedicated  at  Samothrace  by  Demetrius 
soon  after  the  naval  battle  with  Ptolemy  and  that  the 
commemorative  coins  borrowed  their  design  directly 
from  the  statue.  Thus  we  get  a date  for  the  statue, 
and,  what  is  more,  clear  evidence  as  to  how  it  should 
be  restored.  The  goddess  held  a trumpet  to  her  lips 
with  her  right  hand  and  in  her  left  carried  a support 
such  as  was  used  for  the  erection  of  a trophy.  The 
ship  upon  which  she  has  just  alighted  is  conceived  as 
under  way,  and  the  fresh  breeze  blows  her  garments 
backward  in  tumultuous  folds.  Compared  with  the  Vic- 
tory of  Paeonius  (Figs.  143,  144)  this  figure  seems  more 
impetuous  and  imposing.  That  leaves  us  calm  ; this 
elates  us  with  the  sense  of  onward  motion  against  the 
salt  sea  air.  Yet  there  is  nothing  unduly  sensational 
about  this  work.  It  exhibits  a magnificent  idea,  mag- 
nificently rendered. 

From  this  point  on  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  pre- 
serve a chronological  order,  but  the  principal  classes  of 
sculpture  belonging  to  the  Hellenistic  period  will  be 
illustrated,  each  by  two  or  three  examples.  Religious 
sculpture  may  be  put  first.  Here  the  chief  place  belongs 
to  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos,  called  the  Venus  of  Milo 
(Fig.  173).  This  statue  was  found  by  accident  in  1820 
on  the  island  of  Melos  (Milo)  near  the  site  of  the 
ancient  city.  According  to  the  best  evidence  available, 
it  was  lying  in  the  neighborhood  of  its  original  pedestal, 
in  a niche  of  some  building.  Near  it  were  found  a 
piece  of  an  upper  left  arm  and  a left  hand  holding  an 
apple  ; of  these  two  fragments  the  former  certainly  and 
perhaps  the  latter  belong  to  the  statue.  The  prize  was 
bought  by  M.  de  Riviere,  French  ambassador  at  Con- 


250 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


stantinople,  and  pre- 
sented by  him  to  the 
French  king,  Louis 
XVIII.  The  same 
vessel  which  conveyed 
it  to  France  brought 
some  other  marble 
fragments  from  Melos, 
including  a piece  of  an 
inscribed  statue-base 
with  an  artist’s  inscrip- 
tion in  characters  of 
the  second  century  B. 
C.  or  later.  A draw- 
ing exists  of  this  frag- 
ment, but  the  object 
itself  has  disappeared, 
and  in  spite  of  much 
acute  argumentation  it 
remains  uncertain 
whether  it  did  or  did 
not  form  a part  of  the 
basis  of  the  Aphrodite. 

Still  greater  uncer- 
tainty prevails  as  to  the 
proper  restoration  of 
the  statue,  and  no  one 
of  the  many  sugges- 
tions that  have  been 
made  is  free  from  diffi- 
culties.  It  seems 
probable,  as  has  re- 
cently been  set  forth 

Fig.  173.-— The  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  t 

Paris,  Louvre.  with  great  force  and 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 251 


clearness  by  Professor  Furtwangler,*  that  the  figure  is 
an  adaptation  from  an  Aphrodite  of  the  fourth  century, 
who  rests  her  left  foot  upon  a helmet  and,  holding  a 
shield  on  her  left  thigh,  looks  at  her  own  reflection. 
On  this  view  the  difficulty  of  explaining  the  attitude  of 
the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
motive  was  created  for  an  entirely  different  purpose  and 
is  not  altogether  appropriate  to  the  present  one,  what- 
ever precisely  that  may  be. 

It  has  seemed  necessary,  in  the  case  of  a statue  of  so 
much  importance,  to  touch  upon  these  learned  perplex- 
ities ; but  let  them  not  greatly  trouble  the  reader  or  turn 
him  aside  from  enjoying  the  superb  qualities  of  the 
work.  One  of  the  Aphrodites  of  Scopas  or  Praxiteles, 
if  we  had  it  in  the  original,  would  perhaps  reveal  to  us 
a still  diviner  beauty.  As  it  is,  this  is  the  worthiest  ex- 
isting embodiment  of  the  goddess  of  Love.  The  ideal 
is  chaste  and  noble,  echoing  the  sentiment  of  the  fourth 
century  at  its  best  ; and  the  execution  is  worthy  of  a 
work  which  is  in  some  sense  a Greek  original. 

The  Apollo  of  the  Belvedere  (Fig.  174),  on  the  other 
hand,  is  only  a copy  of  a bronze  original.  The  principal 
restorations  are  the  left  hand  and  the  right  fore-arm  and 
hand.  The  most  natural  explanation  of  the  god’s  atti- 
tude is  that  he  held  a bow  in  his  left  hand  and  has  just 
let  fly  an  arrow  against  some  foe.  His  figure  is  slender, 
according  to  the  fashion  which  prevailed  from  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century  onward,  and  he  moves 
over  the  ground  with  marvelous  lightness.  His  appear- 
ance has  an  effect  of  almost  dandified  elegance,  and 
critics  to-day  cannot  feel  the  reverent  raptures  which  this 
statue  used  to  evoke.  Yet  still  the  Apollo  of  the  Belve- 
dere remains  a radiant  apparition.  An  attempt  has  re- 

*“  Masterpieces  of  Greek  Sculpture,”  pages  384^ 


252 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


cently  been  made  to  promote  the  figure,  or  rather  its 
original,  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 

As  a specimen  of  the  portrait-sculpture  of  the  Helle- 
nistic period  I have  selected  the  seated  statue  of  Posidip- 

pus  (Fig.  175), 
an  Athenian 
dramatist  of  the 
so-called  New 
Comedy,  who 
flourished  in  the 
early  part  of  the 
third  century. 
The  preservation 
of  the  statue  is 
ext raordinary  ; 
there  is  nothing 
modern  about  it 
except  the  thumb 
of  the  left  hand. 
It  produces 
strongly  the  im- 
pression of  being 
an  original  work 
and  also  of  being 
a speaking  like- 
ness. It  may 
have  been  mod- 
eled in  the  actual 

Fig.  174.— The  Apollo  of  the  Belvedere.  presence  of  the 
Rome,  Vatican  Museum.  . . . 

subject,  but  in 

that  case  the  name  on  the  front  of  the  plinth  was  doubt- 
less inscribed  later,  when  the  figure  was  removed  from 
its  pedestal  and  taken  to  Rome.  Posidippus  is  clean- 
shaven, according  to  the  fashion  that  came  in  about  the 


Fig.  175. — Posidippus.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum. 

253 


254 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


time  of  Alexander.  There  is  a companion  statue  of 
equal  merit,  which  commonly  goes  by  the  name  of  Me- 
nander. The  two  men  are  strongly  contrasted  with  one 
another  by  the  sculptor  in  features,  expression,  and  bod- 
ily carriage.  Both  stat- 
ues show,  as  do  many 
others  of  the  period, 
how  mistaken  it  would 
be  to  form  our  idea  of 
the  actual  appearance  of 
the  Greeks  from  the 
purely  ideal  creations  of 
Greek  sculpture. 

Besides  real  portraits, 
imaginary  portraits  of 
great  excellence  were 
produced  in  the  Helle- 
nistic period.  Fig.  176 
is  a good  specimen  of 
these.  Only  the  head  is 
antique,  and  there  are 
some  restorations,  in- 
cluding the  nose.  This 
is  one  of  a considerable 
number  of  heads  which 
reproduce  an  ideal  por- 
' p trait  of  Homer,  con- 

ceived as  a blind  old  man.  The  marks  of  age  and  blind- 
ness are  rendered  with  great  fidelity.  There  is  a variant 
type  of  this  head  which  is  much  more  suggestive  of 
poetical  inspiration. 

Portraiture,  of  course,  did  not  confine  itself  to  men  of 
refinement  and  intellect.  As  an  extreme  example  of 
what  was  possible  in  the  opposite  direction  nothing  could 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 255 


be  better  than  the  original  bronze  statue  shown  in  Fig. 
177.  It  was  found  in  Rome  in  1885,  and  is  essentially 
complete,  except  for  the  missing  eyeballs  ; the  seat  is 
new.  The  statue  represents  a naked  boxer  of  herculean 
frame,  his  hands  armed  with  the  ccestus  or  boxing- 
gloves  made  of  leather.  The  man  is  evidently  a profes- 
sional “ bruiser'  ’ of  the  lowest  type.  He  is  just  resting 
after  an  encounter,  and  no  detail  is  spared  to  bring  out 
the  nature  of  his  oc- 
cupation. Swollen 
ears  were  the  con- 
ventional mark  of  the 
boxer  at  all  periods, 
but  here  the  effect  is 
still  further  enhanced 
by  scratches  and 
drops  of  blood . 

Moreover,  the  nose 
and  cheeks  bear  evi- 
dence of  having  been 
badly  “ punished,” 
and  the  moustache  is 
clotted  with  blood. 

From  top  to  toe  the 
statue  exhibits  the 
highest  grade  of 
technical  skill.  One 
would  like  very 
much  to  know  what 
was  the  original  purpose  of  the  work.  It  may  have 
been  a votive  statue,  dedicated  by  a victorious  boxer  at 
Olympia  or  elsewhere.  A bronze  head  of  similar  brutal- 
ity found  at  Olympia  bears  witness  that  the  refined  stat- 
ues of  athletes  produced  in  the  best  period  of  Greek  art 


Fig.  177. — Seated  Boxer.  Rome, 
Museo  delle  Terme. 


256 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


and  set  up  in  that  precinct  were  forced  at  a later  day  to 
accept  such  low  companionship.  Or  it  may  be  that  this 
boxer  is  not  an  actual  person  at  all,  and  that  the  statue 
belongs  to  the  domain  of  genre.  In  either  case  it  testi- 
fies to  the  coarse  taste  of  the  age. 

By  genre  sculpture  is  meant  sculpture  which  deals 
with  incidents  or  situations  illustrative  of  every-day  life. 
The  conditions  of  the  great  age,  although  they  per- 

m i 1 1 e d a ^^r^-like 
treatment  in  votive 
sculptures  and  in 
grave-reliefs  (cf  Fig. 
134),  offered  few  or  no 
occasions  for  works  of 
pure  genre , whose  sole 
purpose  is  to  gratify 
the  spectator.  In  the 
Hellenistic  period, 
however,  such  works 
became  plentiful.  Fig. 
178  gives  a good  speci- 
men. A boy  of  four 
or  five  is  struggling  in 
play  with  a goose  and 
is  triumphant.  The 
composition  of  the 
group  is  admirable, 
and  the  zest  of  the 
sport  is  delightfully 
brought  out.  Observe  too  that  the  characteristic  forms 
of  infancy — the  large  head,  short  legs,  plump  body  and 
limbs — are  truthfully  rendered  ( cf.  page  222).  There  is 
a large  number  of  representations  in  ancient  sculpture  of 
boys  with  geese  or  other  aquatic  birds ; among  them  are 


Fig.  178. — Boy  and  Goose.  Rome, 
Capitoline  Museum. 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 257 


at  least  three  other  copies  of  this  same  group.  The 
original  is  thought  to  have  been  of  bronze. 

Fig.  179  is  genre  again,  and  is  as  repulsive  as  the  last 
example  is  charming.  It  is  a drunken  old  woman,  lean 
and  wrinkled, 
seated  on  the 
ground  and 
clasping  her 
wine-jar  between 
her  knees,  in  a 
state  of  maudlin 
ecstasy.  The 
head  is  modern, 
but  another  copy 
of  the  statue  has 
the  original  head, 
which  is  of  the 
same  character  as 
this.  Ignobility 
of  subject  could 
go  no  further 
than  in  this  work. 

It  is  a pleasure 
to  turn  to  Fig. 

180,  which  in 
purity  of  spirit  is 
worthy  of  the  best  time.  The  arms  are  modern,  and 
their  direction  may  not  be  quite  correct,  though  it  must 
be  nearly  so.  This  original  bronze  figure  represents  a 
boy  in  an  attitude  of  prayer.  It  is  impossible  to  decide 
whether  the  statue  was  votive  or  is  simply  a genre  piece. 

Hellenistic  art  struck  out  a new  path  in  a class  of  re- 
liefs of  which  Figs.  18 1 and  182  are  examples.  There 
are  some  restorations.  A gulf  separates  these  works 


Fig.  179. — Tipsy  Old  Woman.  Rome, 
Capitoline  Museum. 


258 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


from  the  friezes  of  the  Parthenon  and  the  Mausoleum. 
Whereas  relief -sculpture  in  the  classical  period  abjured 
backgrounds  and  picturesque  accessories,  we  find  here 
a highly  pictorial  treatment.  The  subjects  moreover 
are,  in  the  instances  chosen,  of  a character  to  which 
Greek  sculpture  before  Alexan- 
der’s time  hardly  offers  a par- 
allel (yet  cf.  Fig.  87).  In  Fig. 
181  we  see  a ewe  giving  suck 
to  her  lamb.  Above,  at  the 
right,  is  a hut  or  stall,  from 
whose  open  door  a dog  is  just 
coming  out  ; at  the  left  is  an 
oak  tree.  In  Fig.  182  a lioness 
crouches  with  her  two  cubs. 
Above  is  a sycamore  tree,  and 
to  the  right  of  it  a group  of 
objects  which  tell  of  the  rustic 
worship  of  Bacchus.  Each  of 
the  two  reliefs  decorated  a foun- 
tain or  something  of  the  sort. 
In  the  one  the  overturned 
milk-jar  served  as  a water- 
spout ; in  the  other  the  open 
mouth  of  one  of  the  cubs  an- 
swered the  same  purpose.  Gen- 
erally speaking,  the  pictorial 
reliefs  seem  to  have  been  used 
for  the  interior  decoration  of 
private  and  public  buildings. 
Fig.  180 —Praying  Boy.  Berlin,  gy  their  subjects  many  of  them 
bear  witness  to  that  love  of  country  life  and  that  feeling 
for  the  charms  of  landscape  which  are  the  most  attractive 
traits  of  the  Hellenistic  period. 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 259 


The  kingdom  of  Pergamum  in  western  Asia  Minor 
was  one  of  the  smaller  states  formed  out  of  Alexander’s 
dominions.  The  city  of  Pergamum  became  a center  of 
Greek  learning  second  only  to  Alexandria  in  impor- 
tance. Moreover,  under  Attalus  I.  (241 -197  B.  C.)  and 
Eumenes  II.  ( 197- 1 59  B.  C. ) it  developed  an  inde- 
pendent and  powerful  school  of  sculpture,  of  whose 
produ  ctions 
we  fortunately 
possess  nu- 
m erous  e x - 
amples.  The 
most  famous 
of  these  is  the 
Dying  Gaul  or 
Galatian  (Fig. 

183),  once 
erro  neously 
called  th  e 
Dying  Gladi- 
ator. Hordes 
of  Gauls  had 
invaded  Asia 
Minor  as  early 
as  278  B.  C., 
and,  making 
their  h ead- 

quarters  in  the  interior,  in  the  district  afterwards  known 
from  them  as  Galatia,  had  become  the  terror  and  the 
scourge  of  the  whole  region.  Attalus  I.  early  in  his  reign 
gained  an  important  victory  over  these  fierce  tribes,  and 
this  victory  was  commemorated  by  extensive  groups  of 
sculpture  both  at  Pergamum  and  at  Athens.  The  figure 
of  the  Dying  Gaul  belongs  to  this  series.  The  statue 


Fig.  181. — Hellenistic  Relief.  Vienna. 
(From  Overbeck,  “Geschichte  der  griechischen 
Plastik,”  Fig.  209  a.) 


26o 


A History  of  Greek  Art 


was  in  the  possession  of  Cardinal  Ludovisi  as  early  as 
1633,  along  with  a group  closely  allied  in  style,  repre- 
senting a Gaul  and  his  wife,  but  nothing  is  certainly 
known  as  to  the  time  and  place  of  its  discovery.  The 
restorations  are  said  to  be  : the  tip  of  the  nose,  the  left 
knee-pan,  the  toes,  and  the  part  of  the  plinth  on  which 
the  right  arm  rests,*  together  with  the  objects  on  it. 

That  the  man 
represented  is 
not  a Greek  is 
evident  from 
the  large  hands 
and  feet,  the 
coarse  skin,  the 
un-Greek  char- 
acter o f the 
head  (Fig. 
184).  That  he 
is  a Gaul  is 
proved  by  sev- 
eral points  of 
agreement  with 
what  is  known 
from  literary 
sources  of  the 
Gallic  peculiari- 
ties— the  moustache  worn  with  shaven  cheeks  and  chin, 
the  stiff,  pomaded  hair  growing  low  in  the  neck,  the 
twisted  collar  or  torque.  He  has  been  mortally  wounded 
in  battle — the  wound  is  on  the  right  side — and  sinks  with 
drooping  head  upon  his  shield  and  broken  battle-horn. 
His  death-struggle,  though  clearly  marked,  is  not  made 


Fig.  182. — Hellenistic  Relief.  Vienna. 
(From  Overbeck,  “Geschichte  der  griechischen 
Plastik,”  Fig.  209  b.) 


* Helbig,  “ Guide  to  the  Public  Collections  of  Classical  Antiquities  in 
Rome,”  Vol.  I.,  No.  533. 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 261 


violent  or  repulsive.  With  savage  heroism  he  “con- 
sents to  death,  and  conquers  agony.”*  Here,  then,  a 
powerful  realism  is  united  to  a tragic  idea,  and  amid  all 
vicissitudes  of  taste  this  work  has  never  ceased  to  com- 
mand a profound  admiration. 

Our  knowledge  of  Pergamene  art  has  recently  re- 
ceived a great  extension,  in  consequence  of  excavations 


Fig.  183. — Dying  Gaul.  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum. 

carried  on  in  1878-86  upon  the  acropolis  of  Pergamum  in 
the  interest  of  the  Royal  Museum  of  Berlin.  Here  were 
found  the  remains  of  numerous  buildings,  including  an 
immense  altar,  or  rather  altar-platform,  which  was  per- 
haps the  structure  referred  to  in  Revelation  II.  13,  as 
“Satan’s  throne.”  This  platform,  a work  of  great 
architectural  magnificence,  was  built  under  Eumenes  II. 
Its  exterior  was  decorated  with  a sculptured  frieze,  7 

* Byron,  “ Childe  Harold,”  IV.,  140. 


262 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


feet  in  height  and  something  like  400  feet  in  total 
length.  The  fragments  of  this  great  frieze  which  were 
found  in  the  course  of  the  German  excavations  have 
been  pieced  together  with  infinite  patience  and  ingenuity 
and  amount  to  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  whole. 
The  subject  is  th e gig antomachy,  i.  e.>  the  battle  between 
the  gods  and  the  rebellious  sons  of  earth  ( cf.  page  134). 

Fig.  185  shows  the  most  important  group  of  the 
whole  composition.  Here  Zeus,  recognizable  by  the 

thunderbolt  in 
his  outstretched 
right  hand  and 
the  aegis  upon 
his  left  arm,  is 
pitted  against 
three  antago- 
nists. Two  of 
the  three  are 
already  dis- 
abled. The  one 
at  the  left,  a 
youthful  giant 
of  human  form, 
has  sunk  to 
earth,  pierced 
through  the  left 
thigh  with  a 
Fig.  184— Head  of  Dying  Gaul.  huge  flaming 

thunderbolt.  The  second,  also  youthful  and  human, 
has  fallen  upon  his  knees  in  front  of  Zeus  and  presses 
his  left  hand  convulsively  to  a wound  (?)  in  his  right 
shoulder.  The  third  still  fights  desperately.  This  is  a 
bearded  giant,  with  animal  ears  and  with  legs  that  pass 
into  long  snaky  bodies.  Around  his  left  arm  is  wrapped 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 263 


the  skin  of  some  animal  ; with  his  right  hand  (now 
missing)  he  is  about  to  hurl  some  missile  ; the  left 
snake,  whose  head  may  be  seen  just  above  the  giant’s 
left  shoulder,  is  contending,  but  in  vain,  with  an  eagle, 
the  bird  of  Zeus. 

Fig.  186  adjoins  Fig  185  on  the  right  of  the  latter.* 
Here  we  have  a group  in  which  Athena  is  the  central 
figure.  The  goddess,  grasping  her  antagonist  by  the 


Fig.  185. — Group  from  the  Altar  of  Pergamum.  Berlin. 


hair,  sweeps  to  right.  The  youthful  giant  has  great 
wings,  but  is  otherwise  purely  human  in  form.  A ser- 
pent, attendant  of  Athena,  strikes  its  fangs  into  the 
giant’s  right  breast.  In  front  of  Athena,  the  Earth- 
goddess,  mother  of  the  giants,  half  emerging  from  the 
ground,  pleads  for  mercy.  Above,  Victory  wings  her 
way  to  the  scene  to  place  a crown  upon  Athena’s  head. 

If  we  compare  the  Pergamene  altar-frieze  with  scenes 
of  combat  from  the  best  period  of  Greek  art,  say  with 

* Fig.  186  is  more  reduced  in  scale,  so  that  the  slabs  incorrectly  appear  to  be 
of  unequal  height. 


264 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon  or  the  best  preserved  frieze 
of  the  Mausoleum,  we  see  how  much  more  complicated 
and  confused  in  composition  and  how  much  more  violent 
in  spirit  is  this  later  work.  Yet,  though  we  miss  the 
4 ‘ noble  simplicity  ’ ’ of  the  great  age,  we  cannot  fail  to 
be  impressed  with  the  Titanic  energy  which  surges 
through  this  stupendous  composition.  The  “decline” 
of  Greek  art,  if  we  are  to  use  that  term,  cannot  be  taken 
to  imply  the  exhaustion  of  artistic  vitality. 


Fig.  186. — Group  from  the  Altar  of  Pergamum.  Berlin. 


The  existence  of  a flourishing  school  of  sculpture  at 
Rhodes  during  the  Hellenistic  period  is  attested  by  our 
literary  sources,  as  well  as  by  artists’  inscriptions  found 
on  the  spot.  Of  the  actual  productions  of  that  school 
we  possess  only  the  group  of  Laocoon  and  his  sons 
(Fig.  187).  This  was  found  in  Rome  in  1506,  on  the 
site  of  the  palace  of  Titus.  The  principal  modern  parts 
are  : the  right  arm  of  Laocoon  with  the  adjacent  parts 
of  the  snake,  the  right  arm  of  the  younger  son  with  the 
coil  of  the  snake  around  it,  and  the  right  hand  and  wrist 
of  the  older  son.  These  restorations  are  bad.  The 
right  arm  of  Laocoon  should  be  bent  so  as  to  bring  the 


Fig.  187.  — Laocoon  and  his  Sons.  Rome,  Vatican  Museum. 
26  X 


266 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


hand  behind  the  head,  and  the  right  hand  of  the 
younger  son  should  fall  limply  backward. 

Laocoon  was  a Trojan  priest  who,  having  committed 
grievous  sin,  was  visited  with  a fearful  punishment.  On 
a certain  occasion  when  he  was  engaged  with  his  two 
sons  in  performing  sacrifice,  they  were  attacked  by  a 
pair  of  huge  serpents,  miraculously  sent,  and  died  a 
miserable  death.  The  sculptors — for  the  group,  accord- 
ing to  Pliny,  was  the  joint  work  of  three  Rhodian 
artists — have  put  before  us  the  moving  spectacle  of  this 
doom.  Laocoon,  his  body  convulsed  and  his  face  dis- 
torted by  the  torture  of  poison,  his  mouth  open  for  a 
groan  or  a cry,  has  sunk  upon  the  altar  and  struggles  in 
the  agony  of  death.  The  younger  son  is  already  past 
resistance  ; his  left  hand  lies  feebly  on  the  head  of  the 
snake  that  bites  him  and  the  last  breath  escapes  his  lips. 
The  older  son,  not  yet  bitten,  but  probably  not  destined 
to  escape,  strives  to  free  himself  from  the  coil  about  his 
ankle  and  at  the  same  time  looks  with  sympathetic 
horror  upon  his  father’s  sufferings. 

No  work  of  sculpture  of  ancient  or  modern  times  has 
given  rise  to  such  an  extensive  literature  as  the  Lao- 
coon. None  has  been  more  lauded  and  more  blamed. 
Hawthorne  ‘ ‘ felt  the  Laocoon  very  powerfully,  though 
very  quietly  ; an  immortal  agony,  with  a strange  calm- 
ness diffused  through  it,  so  that  it  resembles  the  vast 
rage  of  the  sea,  calm  on  account  of  its  immensity.”* 
Ruskin,  on  the  other  hand,  thinks  “ that  no  group  has 
exercised  so  pernicious  an  influence  on  art  as  this  ; a 
subject  ill  chosen,  meanly  conceived,  and  unnaturally 
treated,  recommended  to  imitation  by  subtleties  of  ex- 
ecution and  accumulation  of  technical  knowledge.  ”f 


* “ Italian  Note-books,”  under  date  of  March  io,  1858. 
f “ Modern  Painters,”  Part  II,  § II,  Chap.  III. 


The  Hellenistic  Period  of  Greek  Sculpture . 267 


Of  the  two  verdicts  the  latter  is  surely  much  nearer  the 
truth.  The  calmness  which  Hawthorne  thought  he  saw 
in  the  Laocoon  is  not  there  ; there  is  only  a terrible  tor- 
ment. Battle,  wounds,  and  death  were  staple  themes 
of  Greek  sculpture  from  first  to  last  ; but  nowhere  else 
is  the  representation  of  physical  suffering,  pure  and 
simple,  so  forced  upon  us,  so  made  the  “be-all  and 
end-all”  of  a Greek  work.  As  for  the  date  of  the 
group,  opinion  still  varies  considerably.  The  probabili- 
ties seem  to  point  to  a date  not  far  removed  from  that  of 
the  Pergamene  altar  ; i.  e. , to  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century  B.C. 

Macedonia  and  Greece  became  a Roman  province  in 
146  B.  C.  ; the  kingdom  of  Pergamum  in  133  B.  C. 
These  political  changes,  it  is  true,  made  no  immediate 
difference  to  the  cause  of  art.  Greek  sculpture  went  on, 
presently  transferring  its  chief  seat  to  Rome,  as  the 
most  favorable  place  of  patronage.  What  is  called  Ro- 
man sculpture  is,  for  the  most  part,  simply  Greek  sculp- 
ture under  Roman  rule.  But  in  the  Roman  period  we 
find  no  great,  creative  epoch  of  art  history  ; moreover, 
the  tendencies  of  the  times  have  already  received  con- 
siderable illustration.  At  this  point,  therefore,  we  may 
break  off  this  sketch. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


GREEK  PAINTING. 

The  art  of  painting  was  in  as  high  esteem  in  Greece 
as  the  art  of  sculpture  and,  if  we  may  believe  the  testi- 
mony of  Greek  and  Roman  writers,  achieved  results  as 
important  and  admirable.  But  the  works  of  the  great 
Greek  painters  have  utterly  perished,  and  imagination, 
though  guided  by  ancient  descriptions  and  by  such 
painted  designs  as  have  come  down  to  us,  can  restore 
them  but  dimly  and  doubtfully.  The  subject  may  there- 
fore here  be  dismissed  with  comparative  brevity. 

In  default  of  pictures  by  the  great  Greek  masters,  an 
especial  interest  attaches  to  the  work  of  humbler  crafts- 
men of  the  brush.  One  class  of  such  work  exists  in 
abundance — the  painted  decorations  upon  earthenware 
vases.  Tens  of  thousands  of  these  vases  have  been 
brought  to  light  from  tombs  and  sanctuaries  on  Greek 
and  Italian  sites  and  the  number  is  constantly  increas- 
ing. Thanks  to  the  indestructible  character  of  pottery, 
the  designs  are  often  intact.  Now  the  materials  and 
methods  employed  by  the  vase-painters  and  the  spaces 
at  their  disposal  were  very  different  from  those  of  mural 
or  easel  paintings.  Consequently  inferences  must  not 
be  hastily  drawn  from  designs  upon  vases  as  to  the  com- 
position and  coloring  of  the  great  masterpieces.  But 
the  best  of  the  vase-painters,  especially  in  the  early  fifth 
century,  were  men  of  remarkable  talent,  and  all  of  them 
were  influenced  by  the  general  artistic  tendencies  of 
their  respective  periods.  Their  work,  therefore,  con- 


268 


Greek  Pahiting, 


269 


tributes  an  important  element  to  our  knowledge  of 
Greek  art  history. 

Having  touched  in  Chapter  II.  upon  the  earlier  styles 


Fig.  188. — The  Francois  Vase.  Florence,  Archaeological  Museum. 

of  Greek  pottery,  I begin  here  with  a vase  of  Attic 
manufacture,  decorated,  as  an  inscription  on  it  shows, 
by  Clitias,  but  commonly  called  from  its  finder  the 
Francis  vase  (Fig.  188).  It  may  be  assigned  to  the 


270 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


first  half  of  the  sixth  century,  and  probably  to  some- 
where near  the  beginning  of  that  period.  It  is  an  early 
specimen  of  the  class  of  black-figured  vases,  as  they  are 
called.  The  propriety  of  the  name  is  obvious  from  the 
illustration.  The  objects  represented  were  painted  in 
black  varnish  upon  the  reddish  clay,  and  the  vase  was 
then  fired.  Subsequently  anatomical  details,  patterns 
of  garments,  and  so  on  were  indicated  by  means  of  lines 
cut  through  the  varnish  with  a sharp  instrument. 
Moreover,  the  exposed  parts  of  the  female  figures — 
faces,  hands,  arms,  and  feet — were  covered  with  white 
paint,  this  being  the  regular  method  in  the  black-figured 
style  of  distinguishing  the  flesh  of  female  from  that  of 
male  figures. 

The  decoration  of  the  Francois  vase  is  arranged  in 
horizontal  bands  or  zones.  The  subjects  are  almost 


wholly  legendary  and  the  vase  is  therefore  a perfect 
mine  of  information  for  the  student  of  Greek  mythology. 
Our  present  interest,  however,  is  rather  in  the  character 
of  the  drawing.  This  may  be  better  judged  from  Fig. 
189,  which  is  taken  from  the  zone  encircling  the  middle 
of  the  vase.  The  subject  is  the  wedding  of  the  mortal, 
Peleus,  to  the  sea-goddess,  Thetis,  the  wedding  whose 


Greek  Painting. 


271 


issue  was  Achilles,  the  great  hero  of  the  Iliad.  To  this 
ceremony  came  gods  and  goddesses  and  other  super- 
natural beings.  Our  illustration  shows  Dionysus  (Bac- 
chus), god  of  wine,  with  a wine-jar  on  his  shoulder  and 
what  is  meant  for  a vine-branch  above  him.  Behind  him 
walk  three  female  figures,  who  are  the  personified 
Seasons.  Last  comes  a group  consisting  of  two  Muses 
and  a four-horse  chariot  bearing  Zeus,  the  chief  of  the 
gods,  and  Hera,  his  wife.  The  principle  of  isoceplialy 
is  observed  on  the  vase  as  in  a frieze  of  relief-sculpture 
(page  145).  The  figures  are  almost  all  drawn  in  profile, 
though  the  body  is  often  shown  more  nearly  from  the 
front,  e.  g.,  in  the  case  of  the  Seasons,  and  the  eyes  are 
always  drawn  as  in  front  view.  Out  of  the  great  multi- 
tude of  figures  on  the  vase  there  are  only  four  in  which 
the  artist  has  shown  the  full  face.  Two  of  these  are 
intentionally  ugly  Gorgons  on  the  handles  ; the  two 
others  come  within  the  limits  of  our  specimen  illustra- 
tion. If  Dionysus  here  appears  almost  like  a caricature, 
that  is  only  because  the  decorator  is  so  little  accustomed 
to  drawing  the  face  in  front  view.  There  are  other 
interesting  analogies  between  the  designs  on  the  vase 
and  contemporary  reliefs.  For  example,  the  bodies, 
when  not  disguised  by  garments,  show  an  unnatural 
smallness  at  the  waist,  the  feet  of  walking  figures  are 
planted  flat  on  the  ground,  and  there  are  cases  in  which 
the  body  and  neck  are  so  twisted  that  the  face  is  turned 
in  exactly  the  opposite  direction  to  the  feet.  On  the 
whole,  Clitias  shows  rather  mon_  skill  than  a contempo- 
rary sculptor,  probably  because  of  the  two  arts  that  of 
the  vase-painter  had  been  the  longer  cultivated. 

The  black-figured  ware  continued  to  be  produced  in 
Attica  through  the  sixth  century  and  on  into  the  fifth. 
Fig.  190  gives  a specimen  of  the  work  of  an  interesting 


272 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


vase-painter  in  this  style,  Execias  by  name,  who  prob- 
ably belongs  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century. 
The  subject  is  Achilles  slaying  in  battle  the  Amazon 
queen,  Penthesilea.  The  drawing  of  Execias  is  distin- 
guished by  an  altogether  unusual  care  and  minuteness  of 
detail,  and  if  the  whole  body  of  his  work,  as  known  to 


Fig.  190. — Design  from  an  Amphora  of  Execias.  London,  British 
Museum.  (From  the  Wiener  Vorlegeblatter , 1888,  PI.  VI.) 


us  from  several  signed  vases,  could  be  here  presented, 
it  would  be  easily  seen  that  his  proficiency  was  well  in 
advance  of  that  of  Clitias.  Obvious  archaisms,  how- 
ever, remain.  Especially  noticeable  is  the  unnatural 
twisting  of  the  bodies.  A minor  point  of  interest  is 
afforded  by  the  Amazon’s  shield,  which  the  artist  has 
not  succeeded  in  rendering  truthfully  in  side  view. 


Greek  Painting. 


273 


That  is  a rather  difficult  problem  in  perspective,  which 
was  not  solved  until  after  many  experiments. 

Some  time  before  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  per- 
haps as  early  as  540,  a new  method  of  decorating  pottery 
was  invented  in  Attica.  The  principal  coloring  matter 
used  continued  to  be  the  lustrous  black  varnish  ; but 
instead  of  filling  in  the  outlines  of  the  figures  with 
black,  the  decorator,  after  outlining  the  figures  by 
means  of  a broad  stroke  of  the  brush,  covered  with 
black  the  spaces  between  the  figures,  leaving  the  figures 
themselves  in  the  color  of  the  clay.  Vases  thus  deco- 
rated are  called  “ red-figured.  ’ 1 In  this  style  incised 

lines  ceased  to  be  used,  and  details  were  rendered 
chiefly  by  means  of  the  black  varnish  or,  for  certain 
purposes,  of  the  same  material  diluted  till  it  became  of  a 
reddish  hue.  The  red-figured  and  black-figured  styles 
coexisted  for  perhaps  half  a century,  but  the  new  style 
ultimately  drove  the  old  one  out  of  the  market. 

The  development  of  the  new  style  was  achieved  by 
men  of  talent,  several  of  whom  fairly  deserve  to  be  called 
artists.  Such  an  one  was  Euphronius,  whose  long 
career  as  a potter  covered  some  fifty  years,  beginning  at 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  or  a little  earlier. 
Fig.  19 1 gives  the  design  upon  the  outside  of  a cylix 
(a  broad,  shallow  cup,  shaped  like  a large  saucer,  with 
two  handles  and  a foot),  which  bears  his  signature.  Its 
date  is  about  480,  and  it  is  thus  approximately  contem- 
porary with  the  latest  of  the  archaic  statues  of  the 
Athenian  Acropolis  (pages  15 1 f.).  On  one  side  we  have 
one  of  the  old  stock  subjects  of  the  vase-painters,  treated 
with  unapproached  vivacity  and  humor.  Among  the 
labors  of  Heracles,  imposed  upon  him  by  his  task- 
master, Eurystheus,  was  the  capturing  of  a certain 
destructive  wild  boar  of  Arcadia  and  the  bringing  of  the 


274 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


creature  alive  to  Mycenae.  In  the  picture,  Heracles  is 
returning  with  the  squealing  boar  on  his  shoulder.  The 
cowardly  Eurystheus  has  taken  refuge  in  a huge  earthen- 
ware jar  sunk  in  the  ground,  but  Heracles,  pretending 
to  be  unaware  of  this  fact,  makes  as  though  he  would 
deposit  his  burden  in  the  jar.  The  agitated  man  and 


of  Eurystheus.  The  scene  on  the  other  side  of  the 
cylix  is  supposed  to  illustrate  an  incident  of  the  Trojan 
War  : two  warriors,  starting  out  on  an  expedition,  are 
met  and  stopped  by  the  god  Hermes.  In  each  design 


Greek  Painting . 


275 


the  workmanship,  which  was  necessarily  rapid,  is  mar- 
velously precise  and  firm,  and  the  attitudes  are  varied 
and  telling.  Euphronius  belonged  to  a generation 
which  was  making  great  progress  in  the  knowledge  of 
anatomy  and  in  the  ability  to  pose  figures  naturally  and 


Fig.  192. — Cylix.  London,  British  Museum. 

expressively.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  close  is  the 
similarity  in  the  method  of  treating  drapery  between  the 
vases  of  this  period  and  contemporary  sculpture. 

The  cylix  shown  in  Fig.  192  is  somewhat  later,  dating 
from  about  460.  The  technique  is  here  different  from 
that  just  described,  inasmuch  as  the  design  is  painted  in 
reddish  brown  upon  a white  ground.  The  subject  is 
the  goddess  Aphrodite,  riding  upon  a goose.  The 
painter,  some  unnamed  younger  contemporary  of 


276 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


Euphronius,  has  learned  a freer  manner  of  drawing. 
He  gives  to  the  eye  in  profile  its  proper  form,  and  to 
the  drapery  a simple  and  natural  fall.  The  subject  does 
not  call,  like  the  last,  for  dramatic  vigor,  and  the  pre- 
eminent quality  of  the  work  is  an  exquisite  purity  and 
refinement  of  spirit. 

If  we  turn  now  from  the  humble  art  of  vase-decora- 
tion to  painting  in  the  higher  sense  of  the  term,  the 
first  eminent  name  to  meet  us  is  that  of  Polygnotus, 
who  was  born  on  the  island  of  Thasos  near  the  Thracian 
coast.  His  artistic  career,  or  at  least  the  later  part  of 
it,  fell  in  the  “ Transitional  period”  (480-450  B.  C. ), 
so  that  he  was  a contemporary  of  the  great  sculptor 
Myron.  He  came  to  Athens  at  some  unknown  date 
after  the  Persian  invasion  of  Greece  (480  B.  C. ) and 
there  executed  a number  of  important  paintings.  In 
fact,  he  is  said  to  have  received  Athenian  citizenship. 
He  worked  also  at  Delphi  and  at  other  places,  after  the 
ordinary  manner  of  artists. 

Painting  in  this  period,  as  practiced  by  Polygnotus 
and  other  great  artists,  was  chiefly  mural  ; the  painting 
of  easel  pictures  seems  to  have  been  of  quite  secondary 
consequence.  Thus  the  most  famous  works  of  Poly- 
gnotus adorned  the  inner  faces  of  the  walls  of  temples 
and  stoas.  The  subjects  of  these  great  mural  paintings 
were  chiefly  mythological.  For  example,  the  two  com- 
positions of  Polygnotus  at  Delphi,  of  which  we  possess 
an  extremely  detailed  account  in  the  pages  of  Pausanias, 
depicted  the  sack  of  Troy  and  the  descent  of  Odysseus 
into  Hades.  But  it  is  worth  remarking,  in  view  of  the 
extreme  rarity  of  historical  subjects  in  Greek  relief- 
sculpture,  that  in  the  Stoa  Poicile  (Painted  Portico)  of 
Athens,  alongside  of  a Sack  of  Troy  by  Polygnotus  and 
a Battle  of  Greeks  and  Amazons  by  his  contemporary, 


Greek  Painting . 


277 


Micon,  there  were  two  historical  scenes,  a Battle  of 
Marathon  and  a Battle  of  CEnoe.  In  fact,  historical 
battle-pieces  were  not  rare  among  the  Greeks  at  any 
period. 

As  regards  the  style  of  Polygnotus  we  can  glean  a 
few  interesting  facts  from  our  ancient  authorities.  His 
figures  were  not  ranged  on  a single  line,  as  in  contem- 
porary bas-reliefs,  but  were  placed  at  varying  heights, 
so  as  to  produce  a somewhat  complex  composition. 
His  palette  contained  only  four  colors,  black,  white, 
yellow,  and  red,  but  by  mixing  these  he  was  enabled  to 
secure  a somewhat  greater  variety.  He  laid  his  colors 
on  in  “flat”  tints,  just  as  the  Egyptian  decorators  did, 
making  no  attempt  to  render  the  gradations  of  color  due 
to  varying  light  and  shade.  His  pictures  were  therefore 
rather  colored  drawings  than  genuine  paintings,  in  our 
sense  of  the  term.  He  often  inscribed  beside  his  figures 
their  names,  according  to  a common  practice  of  the 
time.  Yet  this  must  not  be  taken  as  implying  that  he 
was  unable  to  characterize  his  figures  by  purely  artistic 
means.  On  the  contrary,  Polygnotus  was  preeminently 
skilled  in  expressing  character,  and  it  is  recorded  that 
he  drew  the  face  with  a freedom  which  archaic  art  had 
not  attained.  In  all  probability  his  pictures  are  not  to 
be  thought  of  as  having  any  depth  of  perspective  ; that 
is  to  say,  although  he  did  not  fail  to  suggest  the  nature 
of  the  ground  on  which  his  figures  stood  and  the  objects 
adjacent  to  them,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  represented  his 
figures  at  varying  distances  from  the  spectator  or  gave 
them  a regular  background. 

It  is  clear  that  Polygnotus  was  gifted  with  artistic 
genius  of  the  first  rank  and  that  he  exercised  a powerful 
influence  upon  contemporaries  and  successors.  Yet, 
alas  ! in  spite  of  all  research  and  speculation,  our 


278 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


knowledge  of  his  work  remains  very  shadowy.  A single 
drawing  from  his  hand  would  be  worth  more  than  all 
that  has  ever  been  written  about  him.  But  if  one  would 
like  to  dream  what  his  art  was  like,  cne  may  imagine  it 
as  combining  with  the  dramatic  power  of  Euphronius 
and  the  exquisite  loveliness  of  the  Aphrodite  cup, 
Giotto’s  elevation  of  feeling  and  Michael  Angelo’s  pro- 
fundity of  thought. 

Another  branch  of  painting  which  began  to  attain 
importance  in  the  time  of  Polygnotus  was  scene-painting 
for  theatrical  performances.  It  may  be,  as  has  been 
conjectured,  that  the  impulse  toward  a style  of  work  in 
which  a greater  degree  of  illusion  was  aimed  at  and 
secured  came  from  this  branch  of  the  art.  We  read,  at 
any  rate,  that  one  Agatharchus,  a scene-painter  who 
flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  wrote  a 
treatise  which  stimulated  two  philosophers  to  an  in- 
vestigation of  the  laws  of  perspective. 

The  most  important  technical  advance,  however,  is 
attributed  to  Apollodorus  of  Athens,  a painter  of  easel 
pictures.  He  departed  from  the  old  method  of  color- 
ing in  flat  tints  and  introduced  the  practice  of  grading 
colors  according  to  the  play  of  light  and  shade.  How 
successfully  he  managed  this  innovation  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing  ; probably  very  imperfectly.  But 
the  step  was  of  the  utmost  significance.  It  meant  the 
abandonment  of  mere  colored  drawing  and  the  creation 
of  the  genuine  art  of  painting. 

Two  artists  of  the  highest  distinction  now  appear 
upon  the  scene.  They  are  Zeuxis  and  Parrhasius.  The 
rather  vague  remark  of  a Roman  writer,  that  they  both 
lived  “about  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  War” 
(431-404  B.  C. ) is  as  definite  a statement  as  can  safely 
be  made  about  their  date.  Parrhasius  was  born  at 


Greek  Painting. 


279 


Ephesus,  Zeuxis  at  some  one  or  other  of  the  numerous 
cities  named  Heraclea.  Both  traveled  freely  from  place 
to  place,  after  the  usual  fashion  of  Greek  artists,  and 
both  naturally  made  their  home  for  a time  in  Athens. 
Zeuxis  availed  himself  of  the  innovation  of  Apollodorus 
and  probably  carried  it  farther.  Indeed,  he  is  credited 
by  one  Roman  writer  with  being  the  founder  of  the 
new  method.  The  strength  of  Parrhasius  is  said  to 
have  lain  in  subtlety  of  line,  which  would  suggest  that 
with  him,  as  with  Polygnotus,  painting  was  essentially 
outline  drawing.  Yet  he  too  can  hardly  have  remained 
unaffected  by  the  new  chiaroscuro. 

Easel  pictures  now  assumed  a relative  importance 
which  they  had  not  had  a generation  earlier.  Some  of 
these  were  placed  in  temples  and  such  conformed  in 
their  subjects  to  the  requirements  of  religious  art,  as 
understood  in  Greece.  But  many  of  the  easel  pictures 
by  Zeuxis  and  his  contemporaries  can  hardly  have  had 
any  other  destination  than  the  private  houses  of  wealthy 
connoisseurs.  Moreover,  we  hear  first  in  this  period  of 
mural  painting  as  applied  to  domestic  interiors.  Alci- 
biades  is  said  to  have  imprisoned  a reluctant  painter, 
Agatharchus  (c/.  page  278),  in  his  house  and  to  have 
forced  him  to  decorate  the  walls.  The  result  of  this  sort 
of  private  demand  was  what  we  have  seen  taking  place 
a hundred  years  later  in  the  case  of  sculpture,  viz. : 
that  artists  became  free  to  employ  their  talents  on  any 
subjects  which  would  gratify  the  taste  of  patrons.  For 
example,  a painting  by  Zeuxis  of  which  Lucian  has  left 
us  a description  illustrates  what  may  be  called  mytho- 
logical genre.  It  represented  a female  Centaur  giving 
suck  to  two  offspring,  with  the  father  of  the  family  in 
the  background,  amusing  himself  by  swinging  a lion’s 
whelp  above  his  head  to  scare  his  young.  This  was,  no 


28o 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


doubt,  admirable  in  its  way,  and  it  would  be  narrow^ 
minded  to  disparage  it  because  it  did  not  stand  on  the 
ethical  level  of  Polygnotus’s  work.  But  painters  did  not 
always  keep  within  the  limits  of  what  is  innocent.  No 
longer  restrained  by  the  conditions  of  monumental  and 
religious  art,  they  began  to  pander  not  merely  to  what 
is  frivolous,  but  to  what  is  vile  in  human  nature.  The 
great  Parrhasius  is  reported  by  Pliny  to  have  painted 
licentious  little  pictures,  “refreshing  himself”  (says  the 
writer)  by  this  means  after  more  serious  labors.  Thus 
at  the  same  time  that  painting  was  making  great  tech- 
nical advances,  its  nobility  of  purpose  was  on  the 
average  declining. 

Timanthes  seems  to  have  been  a younger  contempo- 
rary of  Zeuxis  and  Parrhasius.  Perhaps  his  career  fell 
chiefly  after  400  B.  C.  The  painting  of  his  of  which 
we  hear  the  most  represented  the  sacrifice  of  Iphigenia 
at  Aulis.  The  one  point  about  the  picture  to  which 
all  our  accounts  refer  is  the  grief  exhibited  in  varying 
degrees  by  the  bystanders.  The  countenance  of  Calchas 
was  sorrowful  ; that  of  Ulysses  still  more  so  ; that  of 
Menelaus  displayed  an  intensity  of  distress  which  the 
painter  could  not  outdo  ; Agamemnon,  therefore,  was 
represented  with  his  face  covered  by  his  mantle,  his 
attitude  alone  suggesting  the  father’s  poignant  anguish. 
The  description  is  interesting  as  illustrating  the  atten- 
tion paid  in  this  period  to  the  expression  of  emotion. 
Timanthes  was  in  spirit  akin  to  Scopas.  There  is  a 
Pompeian  wall-painting  of  the  sacrifice  of  Iphigenia, 
which  represents  Agamemnon  with  veiled  head  and 
which  may  be  regarded,  in  that  particular  at  least,  as  a 
remote  echo  of  Timanthes’ s famous  picture. 

Sicyon,  in  the  northeastern  part  of  Peloponnesus — a 
city  already  referred  to  as  the  home  of  the  sculptor 


Greek  Painting. 


281 


Lysippus — was  the  seat  of  an  important  school  of  paint- 
ing in  the  fourth  century.  Toward  the  middle  of  the 
century  the  leading  teacher  of  the  art  in  that  place  was 
one  Pamphilus.  He  secured  the  introduction  of  draw- 
ing into  the  elementary  schools  of  Sicyon,  and  this  new 
branch  of  education  was  gradually  adopted  in  other 
Greek  communities.  A pupil  of  his,  Pausias  by  name, 
is  credited  with  raising  the  process  of  encaustic  painting 
to  a prominence  which  it  had  not  enjoyed  before.  In 
this  process  the  colors,  mixed  with  wax,  were  applied  to 
a wooden  panel  and  then  burned  in  by  means  of  a hot 
iron  held  near. 

Thebes  also,  which  attained  to  a short-lived  impor- 
tance in  the  political  world  after  the  battle  of  Leuctra 
(371  B.  C. ),  developed  a school  of  painting,  which 
seems  to  have  been  in  close  touch  with  that  of  Athens. 
There  were  painters  besides,  who  seem  to  have  had  no 
connection  with  any  one  of  these  centers  of  activity. 
The  fourth  century  was  the  Golden  Age  of  Greek 
painting,  and  the  list  of  eminent  names  is  as  long  and 
as  distinguished  for  painting  as  for  sculpture. 

The  most  famous  of  all  was  Apelles.  He  was  a Greek 
of  Asia  Minor  and  received  his  early  training  at  Ephe- 
sus. He  then  betook  himself  to  Sicyon,  in  order  to 
profit  by  the  instruction  of  Pamphilus  and  by  associa- 
tion with  the  other  painters  gathered  there.  It  seems 
likely  that  his  next  move  was  to  Pella,  the  capital  of 
Macedon,  then  ruled  over  by  Philip,  the  father  of  Alex- 
ander. At  any  rate,  he  entered  into  intimate  relations 
with  the  young  prince  and  painted  numerous  portraits 
of  both  father  and  son.  Indeed,  according  to  an  often 
repeated  story,  Alexander,  probably  after  his  accession 
to  the  throne,  conferred  upon  Apelles  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  painting  his  portrait,  as  upon  Lysippus  the 


282 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


exclusive  privilege  of  representing  him  in  bronze. 
Later,  presumably  when  Alexander  started  on  his 
eastern  campaigns  (334  B.  C. ),  Apelles  returned  to 
Asia  Minor,  but  of  course  not  even  then  to  lead  a settled 
life.  He  outlived  Alexander,  but  we  do  not  know  by 
how  much. 

Of  his  many  portraits  of  the  great  conqueror  four  are 
specifically  mentioned  by  our  authorities.  One  of  these 
represented  the  king  as  holding  a thunderbolt,  i.  e. , in 
the  guise  of  Zeus — a fine  piece  of  flattery.  For  this 
picture,  which  was  placed  in  the  Temple  of  Artemis  at 
Ephesus,  he  is  reported,  though  not  on  very  good 
authority,  to  have  received  twenty  talents  in  gold  coin. 
It  is  impossible  to  make  exact  comparisons  between 
ancient  and  modern  prices,  but  the  sum  named  would 
perhaps  be  in  purchasing  power  as  large  as  any  modern 
painter  ever  received  for  a work  of  similar  size.*  It  has 
been  mentioned  above  that  Apelles  made  a number  of 
portraits  of  King  Philip.  He  had  also  many  sitters 
among  the  generals  and  associates  of  Alexander  ; and  he 
left  at  least  one  picture  of  himself.  His  portraits  were 
famous  for  their  truth  of  likeness,  as  we  should  expect 
of  a great  painter  in  this  age. 

An  allegorical  painting  by  Apelles  of  Slander  and  Her 
Crew  is  interesting  as  an  example  of  a class  of  works  to 
which  Lysippus’s  statue  of  Opportunity  belonged  (page 
239).  This  picture  contained  ten  figures,  whereas  most 
of  his  others  of  which  we  have  any  description  con- 
tained only  one  figure  each. 

His  most  famous  work  was  an  Aphrodite,  originally 
placed  in  the  Temple  of  Asclepius  on  the  island  of  Cos. 
The  goddess  was  represented,  according  to  the  Greek 

* Nicias,  an  Athenian  painter  and  a contemporary  of  Apelles,  is  reported  to 
have  been  offered  by  Ptolemy,  the  ruler  of  Egypt,  sixty  talents  for  a picture 
and  to  have  refused  the  offer. 


Greek  Painting. 


283 


myth  of  her  birth,  as  rising  from  the  sea,  the  upper 
part  of  her  person  being  alone  distinctly  visible.  The 
picture,  from  all  that  we  can  learn  of  it,  seems  to  have 
been  imbued  with  the  same  spirit  of  refinement  and  grace 
as  Praxiteles’s  statue  of  Aphrodite  in  the  neighboring 
city  of  Cnidus.  The  Coans,  after  cherishing  it  for 
three  hundred  years,  were  forced  to  surrender  it  to  the 
emperor  Augustus  for  a price  of  a hundred  talents,  and 
it  was  removed  to  the  Temple  of  Julius  Caesar  in  Rome. 
By  the  time  of  Nero  it  had  become  so  much  injured 
that  it  had  to  be  replaced  by  a copy. 

Protogenes  was  another  painter  whom  even  the  slight- 
est sketch  cannot  afford  to  pass  over  in  silence.  He 
was  born  at  Caunus  in  southwestern  Asia  Minor  and 
flourished  about  the  same  time  as  Apelles.  We  read  of 
his  conversing  with  the  philosopher  Aristotle  (died  322 
B.  C. ),  of  whose  mother  he  painted  a portrait,  and  of 
his  being  engaged  on  his  most  famous  work,  a picture 
of  a Rhodian  hero,  at  the  time  of  the  siege  of  Rhodes 
by  Demetrius  (304  B.  C. ).  He  was  an  extremely 
painstaking  artist,  inclined  to  excessive  elaboration  in 
his  work.  Apelles,  who  is  always  represented  as  of 
amiable  and  generous  character,  is  reported  as  saying 
that  Protogenes  was  his  equal  or  superior  in  every  point 
but  one,  the  one  inferiority  of  Protogenes  being  that  he 
did  not  know  when  to  stop.  According  to  another 
anecdote  Apelles,  while  profoundly  impressed  by  Proto- 
genes’s masterpiece,  the  Rhodian  hero  above  referred 
to,  pronounced  it  lacking  in  that  quality  of  grace  which 
was  his  own  most  eminent  merit.*  There  are  still  other 
anecdotes,  which  give  an  entertaining  idea  of  the 
friendly  rivalry  between  these  two  masters,  but  which  do 
not  help  us  much  in  imagining  their  artistic  qualities. 

* Plutarch,  “ Life  of  Demetrius,”  \ 22. 


284 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


As  regards  technique,  it  seems  likely  that  both  of  them 
practiced  principally  ‘ ‘ tempera  ’ 5 painting,  in  which  the 
colors  are  mixed  with  yolk  of  eggs  or  some  other  sticky 
non-unctuous  medium.*  Both  Apelles  and  Protogenes 
are  said  to  have  written  technical  treatises  on  the 
painter’s  art. 

There  being  nothing  extant  which  would  properly 
illustrate  the  methods  and  the  styles  of  the  great  artists 
in  color,  the  best  substitute  that  we  have  from  about 
their  period  is  an  Etruscan  sarcophagus,  found  near 
Corneto  in  1869.  The  material  is  “alabaster  or  a 
marble  closely  resembling  alabaster.”  It  is  ornamented 
on  all  four  sides  by  paintings  executed  in  tempera 
representing  a battle  of  Greeks  and  Amazons.  “ In  the 
flesh  tints  the  difference  of  the  sexes  is  strongly  marked, 
the  flesh  of  the  fighting  Greeks  being  a tawny 
red,  while  that  of  the  Amazons  is  very  fair.  For  each 
sex  two  tints  only  are  used  in  the  shading  and  modeling 
of  the  flesh.  . . . Hair  and  eyes  are  for  the  most 

part  a purplish  brown ; garments  mainly  reddish  brown, 
whitish  grey,  or  pale  lilac  and  light  blue.  Horses 
are  uniformly  a greyish  white,  shaded  with  a fuller  tint 
of  grey  ; their  eyes  always  blue.  There  are  two  colors 
of  metal,  light  blue  for  swords,  spear-heads,  and  the 
inner  faces  of  shields,  golden  yellow  for  helmets, 
greaves,  reins,  and  handles  of  shields,  girdles,  and  chain 
ornaments.” 

Our  illustration  (Fig.  193)  is  taken  from  the  middle 
of  one  of  the  long  sides  of  the  sarcophagus.  It  repre- 
sents a mounted  Amazon  in  front  of  a fully  armed  foot- 
soldier,  upon  whom  she  turns  to  deliver  a blow  with 
her  sword.  “Every  reader  will  be  struck  by  the  beauty 
and  spirit  of  the  Amazon,  alike  in  her  action  and  her 


* Oil  painting  was  unknown  in  ancient  times. 


Greek  Painting. 


285 


facial  expression.  The  type  of  head,  broad,  bold,  and 
powerful,  and  at  the  same  time  young  and  blooming, 
with  the  pathetic-indignant  expression,  is  preserved 
with  little  falling  off  from  the  best  age  of  Greek  art. 
. . . In  spirit  and  expression  almost  equal  to  the 
Amazon  is  the  horse  she  bestrides.”*  The  Greek 
warrior  is  also  admirable  in  attitude  and  expression,  full 
of  energy  and  determination. 

Although  the  paintings  of  this  sarcophagus  were 


Fig.  193. — Detail  from  a Painted  Sarcophagus.  Florence,  Archaeological 
Museum.  (From  The  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  Vol.  IV.,  PI.  XXXVI.) 

doubtless  executed  in  Etruria,  and  probably  by  an 
Etruscan  hand,  they  are  in  their  style  almost  purely 
Greek.  The  work  is  assigned  to  the  earlier  half  of  the 
third  century  B.  C.  If  an  unknown  craftsman  was  stim- 
ulated by  Greek  models  to  the  production  of  paintings 
of  such  beauty  and  power,  how  magnificent  must  have 
been  the  achievements  of  the  great  masters  of  the  brush  1 

*The  quotations  are  from  an  article  by  Mr.  Sidney  Colvin  in  The  Journal  of 
Hellenic  Studies , Vol.  IV.,  pages  354  ff. 


286 


A History  of  Greek  Art. 


For  examples  of  Greek  portrait  painting  we  are  in- 
debted  to  Egypt,  that  country  whose  climate  has  pre- 
served so  much  that  elsewhere  would  have  perished. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Egypt,  having  been  con- 
quered by  Alexander,  fell  after  his  death  to  the  lot  of 
his  general,  Ptolemy,  and  continued  to  be  ruled  by 

Ptolemy’s  descend- 
ants until,  in  30B.C., 
it  became  a Roman 
province.  During 
the  period  of  Mace- 
donian rule  Alexan- 
dria was  the  chief 
center  of  Greek  cul- 
ture in  the  world,  and 
Greeks  and  Greek 
civilization  became 
established  also  in  the 
interior  of  the  coun- 
try ; nor  did  these 
H ell eni zing  influ- 
ences abate  under 
Roman  domination. 
To  this  late  period, 
when  Greek  and 
Egyptian  customs 
were  largely  amalga- 
mated, belongs  a class 
of  portrait  heads 
which  have  been 
found  in  theFayyum, 
chiefly  within  the  last  ten  years.  They  are  painted  on 
panels  of  wood  (or  rarely  on  canvas),  and  were  origi- 
nally attached  to  mummies.  The  embalmed  body  was 


Fig.  194. — Portrait  of  a Man,  from  the 
Fayyum. 


Greek  Painting. 


287 


carefully  wrapped  in  linen  bandages  and  the  portrait 
placed  over  the  face  and  secured  in  position.  These 
pictures  are  executed  principally  by  the  encaustic 
process,  though 
some  use  was  made 
also  of  tempera. 

The  persons  repre- 
sented appear  to  be 
of  various  races — 

Greek,  Egyptian, 

Hebrew,  negro,  and 
mixed ; perhaps  the 
Greek  type  predom- 
inates in  the  speci- 
mens now  known. 

At  any  rate,  the 
artistic  methods  of 
the  portraits  seem 
to  be  purely  Greek. 

As  for  their  date, 
it  is  the  prevailing 
opinion  that  they 
belong  to  the  sec- 
ond century  after 
Christ  and  later, 
though  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to 
carry  the  best  of 
them  back  to  the 
second  century  B.  C. 

The  finest  collection  of  these  portraits  is  one  acquired 
by  a Viennese  merchant,  Herr  Theodor  Graf.  They 
differ  widely  in  artistic  merit ; our  illustrations  show 
three  of  the  best.  Fig.  194  is  a man  in  middle  life, 


Fig.  195. — Portrait  of  a Girl,  from  the 
Fayyum. 


288 


A History  of  Greek  Art . 


with  irregular  features,  abundant,  waving  hair,  and  thin, 
straggling  beard.  One  who  has  seen  Watts’s  picture  of 
“The  Prodigal  Son”  may  remark  in  the  lower  part  of 

this  face  a likeness  to 
that.  Fig.  195  is  a 
charming  girl,  wear- 
ing a golden  wreath 
of  ivy-leaves  about 
her  hair  and  a string 
of  great  pearls  about 
her  neck.  Her  dark 
eyes  look  strangely 
large,  as  do  those  of 
all  the  women  of  the 
series  ; probably  the 
effect  of  eyes  natur- 
ally large  was  height- 
ened, as  nowadays  in 
Egypt,  by  the  prac- 
tice of  blackening  the 
edges  of  the  eyelids. 
Fig.  196  is  the  most 
fascinating  face  of  all, 
and  it  is  artistically 
unsurpassed  in  the 

whole  series.  This 
and  a portrait  of  an 
elderly  man,  not 

given  here,  are  the 

Fig.  196. — Portrait  of  a Young  Woman,  masterpieces  of  the 

from  THE  fayyum.  Graf  collection.  It 

is  much  too  little  to  say  of  these  two  heads  that  they 
are  the  best  examples  of  Greek  painting  that  have  come 
down  to  us.  In  spite  of  the  great  inferiority  of  the 


Greek  Painting . 


289 


encaustic  technique  to  that  of  oil  painting,  these  pictures 
are  not  unworthy  of  comparison  with  the  great  portraits 
o*  modern  times. 

The  ancient  wall-paintings  found  in  and  near  Rome, 
but  more  especially  in  Pompeii,  are  also  mostly  Greek 
in  character,  so  far  as  their  best  qualities  are  concerned. 
The  best  of  them,  while  betraying  deficient  skill  in  per- 
spective, show  such  merits  in  coloring,  such  power  of 
expression  and  such  talent  for  composition,  as  to  afford 
to  the  student  a lively  enjoyment  and  to  intensify  ten- 
fold his  regret  that  Zeuxis  and  Parrhasius,  Apelles  and 
Protogenes,  are  and  will  remain  to  us  nothing  but 


names. 


SHORT  LIST  OF  BOOKS  RECOMMENDED 
FOR  THE  STUDY  OF  GREEK  ART. 


I. 

Greek  Architecture. 

F.  von  Reber  : History  of  Ancient  Art , translated  by 

J.  T.  Clarke.  New  York,  1882. 

J.  Durm  : Die  Baukunst  der  Griechen.  2d  edition. 

Darmstadt,  1892. 

II. 

Greek  Sculpture. 

L.  M.  Mitchell  : History  of  Ancient  Sculpture . New 

York,  1883.  Student’s  edition. 

J.  Overbeck  : Geschichte  der  griechischen  Plastik.  4th 

edition.  Leipzig,  1893-95. 

M.  Collignon  : Histoire  de  la  Sculpture  Grecque. 

Paris.  Vol.  I.,  1892.  Vol.  II.  announced  for 
1896. 

E.  A.  Gardner  : A Handbook  of  Greek  Sculpture. 

London  and  New  York,  1896. 

W.  Helbig  : Guide  to  the  Public  Colledio7is  of  Classical 

Antiquities  in  Rome , translated  by  J.  F.  and 
Findlay  Muirhead.  Leipzig,  1896. 

C.  Friederichs  and  P.  Wolters  : Die  Gipsabgiisse 

antiker  Bildwerke  (a  catalogue  of  casts  of  Greek 
and  Roman  sculpture  in  the  Berlin  Museum). 
Berlin,  1885. 

E.  Robinson  : Catalogue  of  Casts  of  Greek  and  Roman 

Sculpture  in  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston. 
Revised  edition,  1896. 


29 1 


292 


Books  for  the  Study  of  Greek  Art . 


L.  E.  Upcott  : Introduction  to  Greek  Sculpture . Ox- 

ford, 1887. 

III. 

Greek  Painting. 

A.  Woltmann  and  K.  Woermann  : History  of  Ancient, 
Early  Christian  and  Mediceval  Painting,  Eng- 
lish translation  edited  by  Sidney  Colvin.  New 
York,  1880.  Student’s  edition. 

P.  Girard  : La  Peinture  Antique . Paris,  1892. 


INDEX 


Abacus,  85. 

Abydos,  temple  at,  30,  31. 

Acroteria,  88,  123,  214. 

yEgina,  sculptures  from,  153^*./  tem- 
ple at,  84. 

Agatharchus,  278,  279. 

Ageladas,  166. 

Agoracritus,  202. 

Alcamenes,  182. 

Alexander  the  Great,  235,  238,  239, 
243,  281 ; portraits  of,  241  f,  247. 

“Alexander”  sarcophagus,  119,  120, 
247- 

Amazons,  171,  208  231  f.,  272,  284  f. 

Amphiprostyle,  81. 

Anathemata , 123. 

Anta,  81,  88,  98. 

Antenor,  149,  161. 

Apelles,  281  ff. 

Aphrodite,  Anadyomene,  by  Apelles, 
282 f;  of  Cnidus,  by  Praxiteles, 
223;  of  Melos,  118,  249  ff. ; on  a 
cylix,  275. 

Apollo,  125,  131/.,  135, 15  7f,  165,  174/., 
192,  225  ; of  the  Belvedere,  251  f; 
Sauroctonos,  224. 

Apollodorus,  278. 

Apoxyomenos,  240. 

Arch,  the,  in  architecture,  19,  30,  36, 
49»  79- 

Archermue,  140= 

Architrave,  85, 96. 

Aristion,  monument  of,  146. 

Aristogiton,  124, 149,  160  ff. 

Artemis,  171,  192,  227. 

Athena,  150,  155,  171,  188  ff , 263  ; of 
the  Parthenon,  186  f. 

Athlete  statues,  124,  126,  167,  206  ff., 
239 ff-,  255. 

Bacchus,  271. 

Base,  Ionic,  93,  96. 

Bassae,  temple  at,  101. 

Bee-hive  tombs,  52 ff. 

Black-figured  vases,  270. 

Boxer,  seated  statue  of  a,  255. 


Brick,  baked,  35,  38,  78  ; sun-dried,  19, 
24,  35,  38,  56,  78,  107. 

Bronze  sculpture,  30,  44,  46,  120. 
Bryaxis,  230,  232. 

Bulls,  Assyrian  winged,  41/'./  in  My 
censean  art,  57  f,  67  ff. 

Calamis,  166. 

Calf-bearer,  statue  of,  135. 

Capital,  84  ; Corinthian,  103  ff.;  Doric, 
85,  92  f;  Egyptian  forms  of,  27  ff.  ; 
Ionic,  94/.,  97  f,  102. 

Caryatides,  115,  200. 

Celia,  80. 

Centaurs,  174^.,  279. 

Cephisodotus,  218. 

Channeling  of  columns,  25,  84, 85,  93. 
Cheops,  pyramid  of,  19. 

Chiton,  139,  227  ; Doric,  177,  180,  186, 
200 ; Ionic,  150. 

Chryselephantine  statues,  122,  167,  185 
206. 

Clamps,  79. 

Clay  models,  118,  121,  231. 

Clitias,  269. 

Coffers,  89,  101. 

Color,  applied  to  architecture,  105  ff.; 
applied  to  sculpture,  22,  23,  33,  44, 
134,  139,  J47)  148,  153,  220,  247. 
Column,  Doric,  25,  84  f,  90  ff.; 
Egyptian  forms  of,  25,  27 ff.;  Ionic, 
93 ff.;  Mycenaean,  53. 

Colvin,  quoted,  284y. 

Corinthian  capital,  10$  ff. 

Cornice,  87,  96. 

Corona,  87,  96. 

Cow,  silver,  from  Mycenae,  64. 
Crepidoma,  84. 

Cresilas,  199. 

Critius,  162. 

Cyclopean  masonry,  50  f. 

Cyma,  88,  95/. 

Dagger-blades,  from  Mycenae,  65. 
Demons,  Assyrian,  42. 

Dentels,  96,  104. 

Diadumenos,  208. 


293 


294 


Index. 


Diana  of  Gabii,  227. 

Dionysus,  221  f.,  271. 

Di pylon  vases,  73  ff. 

Discobolus,  by  Myron,  167  ff. 

Doric  order,  84  ff. 

Doryphorus,  by  Polyclitus,  206  ff .,  222. 
Dowels,  79. 

Echinus,  85,  92. 

Eirene,  by  Cephisodotus,  217  f. 

Elgin,  Lord,  190. 

Entablature,  61,  84. 

Entasis,  85,  93. 

Erechtheum,  98  f,  109  f. 

Eros,  245. 

Euphronius,  273. 

Execias,  272. 

Eye,  in  reliefs  and  paintings,  33,  40, 
41,  143,  271,  276;  in  statues,  21,  23, 
121,  131,  140,  143,  151,  181. 

Fluting  of  columns,  25,  84,  85,  93. 

Folds  of  drapery,  in  sculpture,  23,  33, 
37,  40,  136, 138,  143/.,  177. 

Francis  vase,  269  ff. 

Frieze,  84  ; Doric,  85/.;  Ionic,  96. 
Furtwangler,  quoted,  169,  189,  251. 
Gaul,  Dying,  259^. 

Gems,  Mycenaean,  69. 

Genre  painting,  279  ; sculpture,  256  f. 
Geometric  vases,  73. 

Gigantomachy , 134,  262. 

Gladiator,  Dying,  so-called,  259  ff. 
Gold  and  ivory  statues,  122,  167,  185, 
206. 

Goose,  Aphrodite  on  a,  275  ; group  of 
boy  and,  256. 

Grave-reliefs,  61,  124,  146,  202  ff. 

Group,  the,  in  sculpture,  22,  164. 
Gudea,  36. 

Hair,  in  sculpture,  121,  129,  131,  140, 
143,  147.  i5°j  I5L  152,  158,  165,  175, 
181,  222  f. 

Harmodius,  124, 149,  160  ff. 

“ Harpy”  tomb,  144. 

Hawk’s-beak  molding,  88  f. 
Hawthorne,  quoted,  225,  266. 

Hegeso,  monument  of,  202. 

Hera,  171,  206,  271. 

Heracles,  133,  171,  178  ff.,  247,  274. 
Hermes,  235,  274;  by  Praxiteles,  221 
ff.;  Moschophorus,  so-called,  135. 
Homer,  head  of,  254. 


Horus,  31. 

Hypaethral  question,  89. 

Hypostyle  hall,  26  f. 

“ Idolino,”  the,  210  f. 

Inscriptions  upon  statues  or  their  ped- 
estals, 113/.,  128,  135,  140,  147,  149, 
213/.,  241,252. 

Ionic  order,  93  ff. 

Isocephaly , 145,  193,  271. 

Karnak,  temple  at,  27. 

Lapiths,  174,  190  ff. 

Leochares,  230,  232. 

Lime-mortar,  78. 

Lion,  the,  in  Mycenaean  art,  61,  66,  70. 
Lion  Gate,  the,  51,  61. 

Lions’  heads,  as  water-spouts,  87. 
Lucian,  quoted,  168. 

Luxor,  temple  at,  26. 

Lysippus,  238  ff. 

Marble  sculpture,  118. 

Marsyas,  170,  226. 

Mastaba,  the,  19. 

Mausoleum,  97,  215,  232  f. 

Meleager,  217. 

Menander,  254. 

Metope,  87. 

Muses,  226,  271. 

Mutule,  87. 

Mycenae,  47,  58,  72. 

Mycenaean  vases,  70. 

Myron,  166  ff. 

Nesiotes,  162. 

Newton,  Sir  C.  T.,  quoted,  158. 
Nicandra,  statue  dedicated  by,  128. 
Nicias,  220,  282. 

Niobe,  228  ff. 

Nudity  in  Greek  art,  60,  125,  155,  223. 
Obelisks,  26. 

Opisthodomos,  81. 

Orchomenus,  54. 

Order,  meaning  of,  in  architecture,  83. 
“ Orientalizing  ” pottery,  76. 

Orpheus  relief,  204  ff. 

Paeonius,  182,  212. 

Painting,  Assyrian,  45  ; Egyptian,  33  f.; 

Greek,  268  ff.;  Mycenaean,  57  ff. 
Palmette,  94. 

Pamphilus,  281. 

Parian  marble,  77,  118. 

Parrhasius,  278  ff. 

Parthenon,  65,  90, 108,  no,  190 ff* 


Index. 


295 


Pater,  quoted,  158  f. 

Pausanias,  quoted,  120,  181  f,  194,  212, 
213,  239. 

Pausias,  281. 

Pediment,  87. 

Pentathlon , 168,  206. 

Pentelic  marble,  77,  118. 

Pergamum,  sculptures  from,  259  ff. 
Pericles,  184, 199. 

Peripteral,  81. 

Peristyle,  81. 

Phidias,  184^.,  238. 

Pictorial  reliefs,  258. 

Pliny,  quoted,  166,  220,  223,  232,  239, 
266. 

Plutarch,  quoted,  184. 

Plutus,  217  f. 

Polychromy,  of  architecture,  105  ff.; 
of  sculpture,  22,  23,  33,  44,  134,  139, 
147,  148,  153,  220,  247. 

Polyclitus,  206  ff 222,  240. 

Polygnotus,  276  ff. 

Polygonal  masonry,  51. 

Poros,  78,  133,  138. 

Portraiture,  23,  34./.,  126,  169  f,  199, 
204,  235ff-y  239,  242,  281/.,  286  ff. 
Posidippus,  252. 

Posidon,  192. 

Praying  boy,  257. 

Praxiteles,  115, 183,  218  ff. 

Priene,  temple  at,  80,  82,  93,  101. 
Pronaos,  81. 

Propylaea,  102,  105,  109. 

Prostyle,  81. 

Proto-Doric  columns,  25, 

Protogenes,  283. 

Pylon,  26. 

Pyramids,  18  f. 

Quintilian,  quoted,  206. 

Ra-em-ka,  21. 

Ra-nofer,  21. 

Red-figured  vases,  273. 

Repoussb  work,  63,  65,  67,  122. 

Rhoecus,  121. 

Ruskin,  quoted,  126,  266. 

Sarcophagus,  “Alexander,”  120,  247  ; 
Amazon,  284 ; of  the  “ Mourning 
Women,”  234. 

Satyrs,  170,  224, f. 


Schliemann,  47. 

Scopas,  101,  215  ff.,  228  ff. 

Scribe,  cross-legged,  22. 

Selinus,  metopes  from,  137  ff.,  171  f. 
Serdab,  20,  21. 

Seti  I.,  bas-relief of,  32. 
Sheikh-el-Beled,  20. 

Silanion,  230 
Sima,  87,  96. 

Sophocles,  233  ff. 

Sphinx,  16 ff.,  26. 

“Spinario,”  the,  182. 

Stoa,  105. 

Stylobate,  84. 

Tanagra  figurines,  244^. 

Tegea,  sculptures  from,  216 f. 

Tello,  sculptures  from,  36 ff. 

Temples,  Egyptian,  25  ff.;  Greek, 
71  ff- 

Templum  in  antis,  81. 

Tenea,  “ Apollo”  of,  132. 

Terra-cotta  figurines,  123. 

Theaters,  Greek,  111  f. 

Theodorus,  121. 

Thera,  “Apollo  ” of,  129  ff. 

Timanthes,  280. 

Timotheus,  230,  231,  232. 

Tiryns,  47,  48,  56. 

Tombs,  Egyptian,  19,  24. 
“Treasuries,”  47,  52. 

Triglyph,  86. 

Typhon,  133. 

Vaphio,  gold  cups  from,  67  ff. 

Vault,  the,  in  architecture,  30,  49,  53. 
Venus  of  Milo,  118,  249  ff. 

“Vesta,”  Giustiniani,  182. 

Victory,  139  f,  187,202,  212  ff.,  247  ff., 
263  ; Wingless,  Temple  of,  101,  201. 
Vitruvius,  quoted,  107,  200,  232. 

Votive  sculptures,  123,  128,  136,  139  f; 

148^.,  212//.,  247 ff. 

Winckelmann,  quoted,  117,  244. 

Wood,  use  of,  in  architecture,  57, 107  ; 

in  sculpture,  20,  117. 

Xoana , 117. 

Zeus,  237,  239,  262,  271 ; by  Phidias, 
J85./V  Temple  of,  at  Olympia,  172  ff. 
Zeuxis,  278 ff. 


L 


1"  '(^7^- 9 !2t v’ ? 

j^*V*  ‘(/L&4r<€**>  |0  * 


i ' f.  yt»?f 


